Jump to content
IGNORED

Football Fans and Alleged Cocaine Use


exAtyeoMax

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Riaz said:

 

 

One things for sure! If it got legalised and regulated, the drug dealers would disappear overnight!

And crime would massively reduce!

 

43 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

If it were legal it could be managed correctly and the criminal element would disappear almost over night,

 

 

39 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Wouldn't be the case. They'd find something else illegal to sell. It's not just about the money, it's the power it gives these people and the status within their local 'hood'. 

 

Firstly, let me just say I have never taken any of the various tablets mentioned on this thread and have never in my life even seen cocaine, let alone taken it.

Clearly, therefore, I am not in a knowledgeable position to comment, but I will anyway ?.

I was reading a lengthy article recently about legalised cannabis in the USA; California, I believe.

In brief, whilst the sale of cannabis, for both medical and recreational purposes, is now legalised, it is also highly regulated, in respect of both vendors and purchasers, meaning people with certain convictions are not allowed to sell and, in the case of people convicted of certain offences, nor are they allowed to purchase.

Apparently, should a legalised vendor comply with all the regulations and ensure that sales are only to people authorised to purchase, there is very little profit to be made.

It will come as no surprise, therefore, that both vendors and purchasers who are unable to comply with the regulations in order to satisfy their needs still rely on the unlicensed and unregulated market, which is apparently even more seedy than before cannabis was legalised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KegCity said:

With the greatest of respect to some people in this thread, it's pretty obvious who's got their opinions from tabloid newspapers and who's actually got a little bit of knowledge on the subject.

And there we have it. The "I'm right and you are wrong" attitude. What is the point of trying to discuss or debate anything anymore, I don't think anyone has claimed to be the font of all knowledge on here, I have asked what I perceive to be perfectly legitimate questions.

You seem to think a report on Portugal proves you are right - a report that actually says: "The move away from criminalising and imprisoning people who use drugs has led to a dramatic change in the profile of the prison population. In 2001, over 40% of the sentenced Portuguese prison population were held for drug offences, considerably above the European average, and 70% of reported crime was associated with drugs.13 While the European average has gradually risen over the past twenty years (from 14 to 18%), the proportion of people sentenced for drug offences in Portuguese prisons has fallen dramatically to 15.7% in 2019 — now below the European average"14 

Now if you decriminalise drug offences why wouldn't the population of people in prison for drug offences decrease? Jeez, it isn't rocket science. It's as if they are trying to claim they are doing better because they their rates are now lower then the European average. What a ridiculous report if that is some sort of proof. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

I'm pretty anti drug, and I agree with this,

If it were legal it could be managed correctly and the criminal element would disappear almost over night,

 

I find it amazing that the same person who would not eat an apple with a bruise on it or pick up a can with a dent in it will buy some white powder in a bit of tin foil from a total stranger and put it one way or the other into their body. For me anyone who acts in such a brainless way deserves what is coming to them, and when they are dragged into A&E to be brought back to life should have to pay for the whole service. Before anyone says it, yes  A&E users as a result of being blind drunk should also have to pay.

  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheReds said:

And there we have it. The "I'm right and you are wrong" attitude. What is the point of trying to discuss or debate anything anymore, I don't think anyone has claimed to be the font of all knowledge on here, I have asked what I perceive to be perfectly legitimate questions.

You seem to think a report on Portugal proves you are right - a report that actually says: "The move away from criminalising and imprisoning people who use drugs has led to a dramatic change in the profile of the prison population. In 2001, over 40% of the sentenced Portuguese prison population were held for drug offences, considerably above the European average, and 70% of reported crime was associated with drugs.13 While the European average has gradually risen over the past twenty years (from 14 to 18%), the proportion of people sentenced for drug offences in Portuguese prisons has fallen dramatically to 15.7% in 2019 — now below the European average"14 

Now if you decriminalise drug offences why wouldn't the population of people in prison for drug offences decrease? Jeez, it isn't rocket science. It's as if they are trying to claim they are doing better because they their rates are now lower then the European average. What a ridiculous report if that is some sort of proof. 

That's the point though? Instead of putting users in prison they get the help they need and dealers aren't going to prison because they're out of a job? There's a lot of "what if?" comments from those opposed to decriminalisation/legalisation that don't hold up when you compare to countries with looser drug laws.

I'm not trying to get on my high horse or shut down debate, just comments like legalisation would lead to an increase in crime is objectively not true. There's proof in other countries and it doesn't make sense anyway when the legal status of a drug has no relevance to an addict anyway. It all feels a bit Daily Mail to me but each to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KegCity said:

That's the point though? Instead of putting users in prison they get the help they need and dealers aren't going to prison because they're out of a job? There's a lot of "what if?" comments from those opposed to decriminalisation/legalisation that don't hold up when you compare to countries with looser drug laws.

I'm not trying to get on my high horse or shut down debate, just comments like legalisation would lead to an increase in crime is objectively not true. There's proof in other countries and it doesn't make sense anyway when the legal status of a drug has no relevance to an addict anyway. It all feels a bit Daily Mail to me but each to their own.

How do you know legalisation of cocaine would NOT lead to an increase of crime in the UK? 

Where does it state in that report what is cocaine related use, and what is cannabis, seeing as this topic was about cocaine specifically, and not cannabis? You need to differentiate between each drug to prove if there is/isn't any more addicts, increase in crime, increase in medical costs etc once it was legalised. Lumping all "drugs" into one report which so say proves your point seems extremely flawed to me. Where are all the cocaine users in Portugal getting their cocaine from?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheReds said:

And there we have it. The "I'm right and you are wrong" attitude. What is the point of trying to discuss or debate anything anymore, I don't think anyone has claimed to be the font of all knowledge on here, I have asked what I perceive to be perfectly legitimate questions.

You seem to think a report on Portugal proves you are right - a report that actually says: "The move away from criminalising and imprisoning people who use drugs has led to a dramatic change in the profile of the prison population. In 2001, over 40% of the sentenced Portuguese prison population were held for drug offences, considerably above the European average, and 70% of reported crime was associated with drugs.13 While the European average has gradually risen over the past twenty years (from 14 to 18%), the proportion of people sentenced for drug offences in Portuguese prisons has fallen dramatically to 15.7% in 2019 — now below the European average"14 

Now if you decriminalise drug offences why wouldn't the population of people in prison for drug offences decrease? Jeez, it isn't rocket science. It's as if they are trying to claim they are doing better because they their rates are now lower then the European average. What a ridiculous report if that is some sort of proof. 

I'm not sure if you saw that Hale and Pace sketch many years ago portraying two Dutch coppers. Saying they didn't have a problem with burglary anymore seeing as they had legalised it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheReds said:

Cigarettes surely cannot be comparable, as for starters they don't turn people into complete and utter bellends, thinking they are invincible, causing violence and harm to others. I don't think it turns that many people to crime to pay for their habit, or affect their ability to go to work and do their job.

As for alcohol, what percentage of alcohol drinkers are/get addicted? What percentage of cocaine users are/get addicted - and then lead to getting on to other drugs like heroin etc? I am only guessing here, but would suggest that alcohol is overall less harmful than cocaine in general, hence its classification. What does cocaine versus alcohol do to a persons mental health? Longterm health/mental health? How many people who drink alcohol commit crime to drink alcohol versus drugs?

Professor David Nutt believes alcohol to be the most dangerous. Unfortunately he was sacked from his role on the drug advisory board as it wasn't the answer that the government wanted.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/professor-david-nutt-former-government-adviser-says-alcohol-is-most-dangerous-drug-11909379

I would say that alcohol is worse on most of those factors. All drugs are shit to be addicted too, but the physical and psychological dependency of alcohol are pretty severe as I'm sure many of us here will know. Crack is another story too of course. I don't find grading drugs helpful to be honest. Ultimately all substance use is potentially harmful and reducing risk through education and access to support are key. You also end up with weird concepts of what drugs are okay and what aren't. As we see with alcohol for example. My personal experience is alcohol has been most destructive for me, but it will be different for others. 

As it's been mentioned I went to a talk by the doctor who was Head of the team that decriminalised drug use in Portugal when I was there. He said they would never go back to the old ways, but the only reason why they were able to get the rules changed were because middle class children were dying of heroin and they put pressure on the government due to them refusing to accept their children should be criminalised. In terms of reducing harm it's been a success. 

It's nice to see drug regulation talk being mainstream. :) We are doing some good things now - Loop are drug testing regularly in Bristol now. The harm reduction van up in Scotland where they let people inject safely. Some better stuff being done with younger people. Still a long way to go, but a lot of this stuff seemed impossible ten years ago.

Edited by Rebounder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I find it amazing that the same person who would not eat an apple with a bruise on it or pick up a can with a dent in it will buy some white powder in a bit of tin foil from a total stranger and put it one way or the other into their body. For me anyone who acts in such a brainless way deserves what is coming to them, and when they are dragged into A&E to be brought back to life should have to pay for the whole service. Before anyone says it, yes  A&E users as a result of being blind drunk should also have to pay.

Because if it were legal, it would be taxed, that tax then could be used for treatment and proper rehab and programmes (like with gambling and alcohol)

You also wouldn't get drug running County lines gangs a reduction in gangland murder and attacks thus free up police resources, also with that tax money you would also be able to better invest into the NHS (they have to treat it now without that extra cash)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Because if it were legal, it would be taxed, that tax then could be used for treatment and proper rehab and programmes (like with gambling and alcohol)

You also wouldn't get drug running County lines gangs a reduction in gangland murder and attacks thus free up police resources, also with that tax money you would also be able to better invest into the NHS (they have to treat it now without that extra cash)

Are you suggesting legalising all drugs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Monkeh said:

Not at all,

Well the criminal gangs and enterprises would continue to supply other Class A Drugs , as they’ve always done , and there would be nil reduction in criminality or associated murders and violence. 

Its an easy And popular solution to throw out there , but massively complex



Heres three simple observations,  from your view , and there are dozens more 

 

Where does the cost of running this legal and heavily regulated drug supply come from - any tax wouldn’t even touch it , unless you increase the cost so much , it would become cost prohibitive and increase the risk of crime to fund users.

Existing criminal organisations would also simply , and easily , undercut the price ‘ offered by the state’   
 

You are almost certainly going to increase the number of users , ( For all the (true to a degree)  claims that it’s easier to order cocaine than Deliveroo it does require  you to have or acquire those contacts , legal and easy access will merely increase the size of the market , and users further ) increasing the number whose health suffers considerably and the effects on the NHS and the ‘system’


Legalising is an option , and one that should have consideration , but it’s hugely complex , without significant problem and not one I’d consider in relation to Class A Drugs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sheltons Army said:

Well the criminal gangs and enterprises would continue to supply other Class A Drugs , as they’ve always done , and there would be nil reduction in criminality or associated murders and violence. 

Its an easy And popular solution to throw out there , but massively complex



Heres three simple observations,  from your view , and there are dozens more 

 

Where does the cost of running this legal and heavily regulated drug supply come from - any tax wouldn’t even touch it , unless you increase the cost so much , it would become cost prohibitive and increase the risk of crime to fund users.

Existing criminal organisations would also simply , and easily , undercut the price ‘ offered by the state’   
 

You are almost certainly going to increase the number of users , ( For all the (true to a degree)  claims that it’s easier to order cocaine than Deliveroo it does require  you to have or acquire those contacts , legal and easy access will merely increase the size of the market , and users further ) increasing the number whose health suffers considerably and the effects on the NHS and the ‘system’


Legalising is an option , and one that should have consideration , but it’s hugely complex , without significant problem and not one I’d consider in relation to Class A Drugs

I can agree with that, good post

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

Well the criminal gangs and enterprises would continue to supply other Class A Drugs , as they’ve always done , and there would be nil reduction in criminality or associated murders and violence. 

Its an easy And popular solution to throw out there , but massively complex



Heres three simple observations,  from your view , and there are dozens more 

 

Where does the cost of running this legal and heavily regulated drug supply come from - any tax wouldn’t even touch it , unless you increase the cost so much , it would become cost prohibitive and increase the risk of crime to fund users.

Existing criminal organisations would also simply , and easily , undercut the price ‘ offered by the state’   
 

You are almost certainly going to increase the number of users , ( For all the (true to a degree)  claims that it’s easier to order cocaine than Deliveroo it does require  you to have or acquire those contacts , legal and easy access will merely increase the size of the market , and users further ) increasing the number whose health suffers considerably and the effects on the NHS and the ‘system’


Legalising is an option , and one that should have consideration , but it’s hugely complex , without significant problem and not one I’d consider in relation to Class A Drugs

I agree it's definitely complex. There is extensive research that has been done into this including with trials and a lot of the stuff you have raised has been addressed by Transform Drug Policy Foundation in their various papers. 

100 percent it would need to be affordable. Just to use Heroin as an example - The state can and does quite easily produce Opiates at low prices that are free of other additives. They can afford to sell it at much lower prices than someone could having to go to all the trouble of transporting it from Afghanistan.

There was a study in Liverpool in the late 80's where a Liverpool doctor had used loopholes to provide heroin to people who use opiates. The results were really positive.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/ex-undercover-cop-says-widnes-11854487.amp

There is a massive difference between legal regulation and free market capitalist approach to selling drugs in my view. I wouldn't use America's approach to selling cannabis for example. I've not checked recently but the first studies showed the use of cannabis dropped particularly amongst school children.

 So many issues of substance use are created by the classing system and the criminality that surrounds it. It amplifies the negatives and does nothing to protect people. It creates stigma of using substances that means people can't access support and help early. Most of the people I know who develop longer term problems have childhood trauma that has been untreated and so we need early intervention work in place - unfortunately waiting times for CHAMS are insane. 

Personally I'd be looking to legally regulate opiates first. None of this is particularly radical - "The war on drugs" was a radical move and we shouldn't marry ourselves to this ideolgy forever. No easy answers and maybe the truth is in between. 

 

 

Edited by Rebounder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone may have touched on this but while decrimialising may be a good idea,I assume the stuff bought legally will be higher quality, and therefore more expensive, and the current suppliers will offer a much more impure version at a much lower cost which I imagine will be more affordable/desirable to the majority of consumers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Slacker said:

I think someone may have touched on this but while decrimialising may be a good idea,I assume the stuff bought legally will be higher quality, and therefore more expensive, and the current suppliers will offer a much more impure version at a much lower cost which I imagine will be more affordable/desirable to the majority of consumers. 

It's been a while since I've looked into it, but my understanding is that governments could access and produce cheap substances in mass. Many of them could be produced legally here. The cost of policing is huge and the drug market is a billion dollar industry that is currently untaxed. 

The price would have to be competitive and generally people don't want to die/buy things that aren't what they say they are. A small bag of heroin may be cheap, but it's hardly working and may have other synthetic opiates in it. Fentynal for example. (Possibly heroin would be under a prescription model anyway) 

I don't think we would have to pay more, but I would pay more for a genuine product that I could dose properly and wasn't going to kill me. Dealers control the market now, but would it be worth their time and risk of prison for a much smaller market share? It's not a silver bullet but...

Some people do buy fake/low cost alcohol and tobacco, but it's a very small amount I think? Usually more common in places where alcohol is hard to get hold of - thinking of those deaths in Russia a couple of years ago. Maybe wrong though particularly with the increasing costs. 

Edited by Rebounder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me talk you through what a day on coke at the football looks like. 

This is what happens. Lads have a few pints to whet the whistle, normal stuff like everyone does.

You a bit tipsy/lively. You get a bag in. Costs about 50/60 quid or 3 for a 100 (you may have seen memes about this on-line) 

The coke "sobers" you up. You feel normal, excited, feeling good. Super chatty, really enjoy your company. "CITY TIL I DIE!!" "**** THE GAS" all that shit, its fun. 

You continue to pour more booze into yourself because you don't get "drunk" (you ARE drunk but are able to stand up straight and hold a conversation without slurring, a bouncer will let you in places for example)

So by this point you've had ten pints but to the outside world you look like you've had about three, but in your head you are proper mashed. You may feel OK but things like decision making, paranoia, excitement increase ten fold. 

Something might happen, you might get aggro or overreact and then there's a problem. You don't think about any consequences to your behaviour. Fight might start, you are rude to people, obnoxious "Lads Lads Lads" etc.

Coke is a stimulant, but pouring a shit load of cider on top it makes actions and behaviour much more unpredictable.

This is how you create a bellend. And if you went out in town tonight you'd see hundreds of them, they are everywhere.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easiest way to solve the drug problem. 
Everyone gets tested on a Monday morning. 
If you’re positive, you’re suspended without pay from your job, or if you don’t work, you don’t receive your benefits. 
If you can come back the following Monday clean then you’re back in. 
 

Will soon sort the problem. Do drugs, Don’t earn. 
 

We somehow managed to spend billions on useless covid tests over the past 2 years. I’m sure we could afford a drugs testing program of similar scale 

Edited by Harry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

Easiest way to solve the drug problem. 
Everyone gets tested on a Monday morning. 
If you’re positive, you’re suspended without pay from your job, or if you don’t work, you don’t receive your benefits. 
If you can come back the following Monday clean then you’re back in. 
 

Will soon sort the problem. Do drugs, Don’t earn. 
 

We somehow managed to spend billions on useless covid tests over the past 2 years. I’m sure we could afford a drugs testing program of similar scale 

I would imagine if someone is addicted and desperate enough they would find the money for their habit from somewhere. Theft,robbery, burglary, mugging would probably be the favoured means of funding their habit if they lose their normal income. Desperate people do desperate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Let me talk you through what a day on coke at the football looks like. 

This is what happens. Lads have a few pints to whet the whistle, normal stuff like everyone does.

You a bit tipsy/lively. You get a bag in. Costs about 50/60 quid or 3 for a 100 (you may have seen memes about this on-line) 

The coke "sobers" you up. You feel normal, excited, feeling good. Super chatty, really enjoy your company. "CITY TIL I DIE!!" "**** THE GAS" all that shit, its fun. 

You continue to pour more booze into yourself because you don't get "drunk" (you ARE drunk but are able to stand up straight and hold a conversation without slurring, a bouncer will let you in places for example)

So by this point you've had ten pints but to the outside world you look like you've had about three, but in your head you are proper mashed. You may feel OK but things like decision making, paranoia, excitement increase ten fold. 

Something might happen, you might get aggro or overreact and then there's a problem. You don't think about any consequences to your behaviour. Fight might start, you are rude to people, obnoxious "Lads Lads Lads" etc.

Coke is a stimulant, but pouring a shit load of cider on top it makes actions and behaviour much more unpredictable.

This is how you create a bellend. And if you went out in town tonight you'd see hundreds of them, they are everywhere.

And that's why it's probably the mix of the alcohol and coke that's the bigger problem. Sounds like you can just take more alcohol on board if you have coke.

What alcohol does is just make you not care, if you stop a drunk driver they will usually know they are drunk driving they have just lost the ability to care about the consequences, take a really pissed up bloke being aggressive on the street they just don't care about anything other than their feelings of anger.

Basically pissed up people don't take other people's perspectives into consideration, coke means that more people can be pissed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SydneyCity said:

In Australia coke, alcohol and watching sport are all pretty popular past times. Doing all three at the same time is not uncommon either. Despite this, there’s never any trouble at sporting events - and this is largely cultural.
 

Sporting rivalries tend to be friendly and there’s an unwritten, but widely accepted, societal rule of: “Don’t be a d**khead”. If anyone is a d**khead, they’ll very quickly be told to pull their heads in by the vast majority of those around them.

It’s not perfect but it generally works.

Eh?

AFL games have been full of reports on the news of crowd violence

 

The NRL has been rocked by recent all-ins in the crowd.

 

Every major racing carnival has resulted in mass brawls.

 

You mustn't get out much!

 

Last week in QLD...

 

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/05/14/watch-ugly-brawl-dampens-day-one-of-magic-round/

 

 

Edited by The Constant Rabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Slacker said:

I would imagine if someone is addicted and desperate enough they would find the money for their habit from somewhere. Theft,robbery, burglary, mugging would probably be the favoured means of funding their habit if they lose their normal income. Desperate people do desperate things.

Then you have a much much narrower problem. Instead of half the world doing drugs on a weekend, you’ll only have to handle the desperately addicted. A much smaller problem to handle. I’m sure most people who seem to be addicted to coke would soon quit when they realised their livelihood was being taken away from them. Sometimes folk just need that jolt to wake them up and sort themselves out. Do drugs - no earnings this week. Come back clean next week and you can earn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Then you have a much much narrower problem. Instead of half the world doing drugs on a weekend, you’ll only have to handle the desperately addicted. A much smaller problem to handle. I’m sure most people who seem to be addicted to coke would soon quit when they realised their livelihood was being taken away from them. Sometimes folk just need that jolt to wake them up and sort themselves out. Do drugs - no earnings this week. Come back clean next week and you can earn. 

You could be right. It certainly may deter the more casual users if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/05/2022 at 18:28, Bristol Rob said:

Until they find something 'better' to sell.

I read an interesting article about how it’s extremely dangerous to be an avocado grower in Mexico these days.

Long story short… with the legalisation of marijuana in the US, the Mexican cartels found themselves with a lot of unprofitable cannabis crops. They saw that the mark-up on avocados (selling to health conscious, avo toast loving Americans) was more lucrative than weed, so they dug up their crops and converted the land to avocado plantations. To maximise profits they took all their drug business knowledge and proceeded to strong arm and execute any competitors, essentially executing a load of innocent farmers who had been in the business for years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...