|
|
Post by musik on Sept 6, 2023 20:27:09 GMT
Sweden Latest
The custom officials discovered in a tv documentary 58 kilo cannabis in a truck and said they saved the society from 100 million SEK of societal costs. No source to that figure given though and how they have calculated.
I always miss the original sources on swedish tv and in articles in the papers.
The support party the SwedenDemocrats and the government have decided now to raise the tax on cigarettes and lower the tax on snuff. In an interview a member of the SwedenDemocrats said it's not their job to say what adults should do. I think that what a strange comment to make in that context. The new snuff policy has received a lot of criticism. Some even suggest it would be better to forbid all tobacco!
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 10, 2023 14:29:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2023 14:42:43 GMT
Are there any other news sources on this that you know of? I know from experience not to rely on the Mail. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Sept 10, 2023 15:55:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 10, 2023 16:31:21 GMT
Not really. It's more fear mongering from a truly terrible paper. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2023 17:25:26 GMT
Not really. It's more fear mongering from a truly terrible paper. Not for the first time and definitely not the last. They either don't realise the damage they do or they don't care, I can't decide which would be worse. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 10, 2023 17:29:07 GMT
Not really. It's more fear mongering from a truly terrible paper. Not for the first time and definitely not the last. They either don't realise the damage they do or they don't care, I can't decide which would be worse. Considering they've been peddling various poisonous myths without remorse for about 40 years, I would say probably the second. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 10, 2023 18:05:23 GMT
Like I say I've actually been there, what's said about Portland seemed accurate in my experience. It's a tragedy and it needs to be learned from. Personally anyone advocating for following their lead should take a look for themselves.
Glasgow on the other hand I've no idea about.
I try to read either side of the spectrum just to see which way the next lot of leaders are trying to drag us down.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 10, 2023 18:08:22 GMT
Like I say I've actually been there, what's said about Portland seemed accurate in my experience. It's a tragedy and it needs to be learned from. Personally anyone advocating for following their lead should take a look for themselves. Glasgow on the other hand I've no idea about. I try to read either side of the spectrum just to see which way the next lot of leaders are trying to drag us down. No nice pictures there ... |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2023 18:27:58 GMT
Like I say I've actually been there, what's said about Portland seemed accurate in my experience. It's a tragedy and it needs to be learned from. Personally anyone advocating for following their lead should take a look for themselves. Glasgow on the other hand I've no idea about. I try to read either side of the spectrum just to see which way the next lot of leaders are trying to drag us down. I haven't read it, I don't visit their website out of principle. I'd be interested to discover what sort of 'legalisation' model they've followed before I would agree that I'm advocating 'following their lead' personally. Are there safe injection sites, drug testing facilities, pharmaceutical dispensaries and support systems for addicts to name just a few requirements for a successful transition. Do you think drug prohibition is the best solution for the drug problems society faces? Historically, as far as I can see it's a complete disaster, just like alcohol prohibition was. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 10, 2023 18:37:52 GMT
Like I say I've actually been there, what's said about Portland seemed accurate in my experience. It's a tragedy and it needs to be learned from. Personally anyone advocating for following their lead should take a look for themselves. Glasgow on the other hand I've no idea about. I try to read either side of the spectrum just to see which way the next lot of leaders are trying to drag us down. I haven't read it, I don't visit their website out of principle. I'd be interested to discover what sort of 'legalisation' model they've followed before I would agree that I'm advocating 'following their lead' personally. Are their safe injection sites, drug testing facilities, pharmaceutical dispensaries and support systems for addicts to name just a few requirements for a successful transition. Do you think drug prohibition is the best solution for the drug problems society faces? Historically, as far as I can see it's a complete disaster, just like alcohol prohibition was. I just think it's interesting they've done away with all limits and let it run. "Oregon, one of the most progressive states in America, decriminalised possession of drugs including crystal meth, fentanyl and cocaine in 2020. Out of that, legislation known as Measure 110, which allowed people to possess and consume small amounts of the narcotics, was born and implemented in Portland in early 2021. Police Sergeant Kevin Allen says ¿It¿s a human tragedy that police officers, firefighters, paramedics, hospital staff, homeless services and our entire community are seeing unfolding before us every day." The most telling comment was this statement "Commissioner Gonzalez last night said it was a position he and many citizens had been forced to rethink. He said: ‘There is still broad consensus we don’t want to criminalise addiction, that it is to be viewed as a disease or a medical issue. But the part that has been very painful for Oregonians and Portlanders is we took away the prohibitions but we didn’t stand up quickly enough the support to get people into treatment. ‘So we kind of have the worst of both worlds: we don’t have anything disrupting self-destructive behaviours and we don’t have a strong enough support system.’ He continued: ‘We hear from citizens every day that they can respect someone’s body autonomy for their right to use, but they don’t want to see it in front of them, they don’t want to breathe it and they don’t want their kids to be exposed to it. ‘There are tensions, we want people to get treatment, we don’t want to criminalise addiction, but we also have rights for our common areas; they should be for everyone and not just folks that consume fentanyl and meth.’ Although the measure was approved by almost 60 per cent of Oregon voters in 2020, a poll last month suggested 56 per cent of respondents in the state backed a total repeal of Measure 110 and 64 per cent would support repealing parts of it. Commissioner Gonzalez claims one of the main problems was Portland did not have enough addiction services to divert people from prosecution and into treatment. Commenting on the number of publicly funded rehab beds in Scotland – about 425 in 2021 – he said: ‘I am deeply concerned. I would encourage Scotland to try to avoid the tragedy we’re going through, and if you’re going to go down this path, make a strong commitment to addiction services and emergency intervention." It backs up what you're saying, but until you put those support measures in place the existing rules need to stay in place in my opinion, otherwise you lose the support of those who see an argument for a different approach. That's why I say about learning from the mistakes of others who are going down that route and have suffered as a result. I went there for the breweries myself, though I wouldn't necessarily recommend them either but for completely different reasons. I really enjoyed my time there, it's a great city in a stunning part of the world, but I guarantee you this would put me off returning. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2023 18:59:06 GMT
I haven't read it, I don't visit their website out of principle. I'd be interested to discover what sort of 'legalisation' model they've followed before I would agree that I'm advocating 'following their lead' personally. Are their safe injection sites, drug testing facilities, pharmaceutical dispensaries and support systems for addicts to name just a few requirements for a successful transition. Do you think drug prohibition is the best solution for the drug problems society faces? Historically, as far as I can see it's a complete disaster, just like alcohol prohibition was. I just think it's interesting they've done away with all limits and let it run. "Oregon, one of the most progressive states in America, decriminalised possession of drugs including crystal meth, fentanyl and cocaine in 2020. Out of that, legislation known as Measure 110, which allowed people to possess and consume small amounts of the narcotics, was born and implemented in Portland in early 2021. Police Sergeant Kevin Allen says ¿It¿s a human tragedy that police officers, firefighters, paramedics, hospital staff, homeless services and our entire community are seeing unfolding before us every day." The most telling comment was this statement "Commissioner Gonzalez last night said it was a position he and many citizens had been forced to rethink. He said: ‘There is still broad consensus we don’t want to criminalise addiction, that it is to be viewed as a disease or a medical issue. But the part that has been very painful for Oregonians and Portlanders is we took away the prohibitions but we didn’t stand up quickly enough the support to get people into treatment. ‘So we kind of have the worst of both worlds: we don’t have anything disrupting self-destructive behaviours and we don’t have a strong enough support system.’ He continued: ‘We hear from citizens every day that they can respect someone’s body autonomy for their right to use, but they don’t want to see it in front of them, they don’t want to breathe it and they don’t want their kids to be exposed to it. ‘There are tensions, we want people to get treatment, we don’t want to criminalise addiction, but we also have rights for our common areas; they should be for everyone and not just folks that consume fentanyl and meth.’ Although the measure was approved by almost 60 per cent of Oregon voters in 2020, a poll last month suggested 56 per cent of respondents in the state backed a total repeal of Measure 110 and 64 per cent would support repealing parts of it. Commissioner Gonzalez claims one of the main problems was Portland did not have enough addiction services to divert people from prosecution and into treatment. Commenting on the number of publicly funded rehab beds in Scotland – about 425 in 2021 – he said: ‘I am deeply concerned. I would encourage Scotland to try to avoid the tragedy we’re going through, and if you’re going to go down this path, make a strong commitment to addiction services and emergency intervention." It backs up what you're saying, but until you put those support measures in place the existing rules need to stay in place in my opinion, otherwise you lose the support of those who see an argument for a different approach. That's why I say about learning from the mistakes of others who are going down that route and have suffered as a result. I went there for the breweries myself, though I wouldn't necessarily recommend them either but for completely different reasons. I really enjoyed my time there, it's a great city in a stunning part of the world, but I guarantee you this would put me off returning. They've obviously gone about it in a half arsed way, who knows why, I imagine there's a lot of organisations very happy about it tho, rehab is a huge money making business in the US despite it only being effective 6-8% of the time. "It backs up what you're saying, but until you put those support measures in place the existing rules need to stay in place in my opinion, otherwise you lose the support of those who see an argument for a different approach." I'm torn about elements of this, to continue locking people up for their choice of drug when they're harming nobody else has always seemed like a moral issue to me, not only that it's been proven not to work, in fact it causes more harm than good. On the one side of prohibition you have those who want it to continue - Police - let's face it it's an easy conviction, no outrage from most of the public who've been trained to see the perpetrators (who in a lot of cases will also be victims) as 'scum' and it's good for the budget. Politicians - why wouldn't a government want more control? The dealers and drug cartels - ending prohibition would be a big hit to their business, seemingly the only thing that will be. Against prohibition you have various action groups including Scientists that have looked at the data and done studies (some of which the government commissioned and duly ignored), parents who've lost children and ex serving police officers who've realised what total folly it all is and was. I know which side I'd rather be on and contrary to accusations I faced recently it's not the first lot 😄 |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 13, 2023 14:11:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 14, 2023 9:22:29 GMT
Sweden Latest
It's an ongoing debate going on in our parliament (Riksdagen) between the government and the support party The Sweden Democrats on one side and the opposition on the left side.
As the shootings have accelerated the government and the SD party have promised to continue and reinforce the war against drugs so that less and less people can use it and therefore less weapons, less crime, less sadness, less of everything bad practically.
Their explanation for the policy is: if you strangle the cash flow to the gangs, they have nothing to build their "business" and they have nothing to fight about in the end. And the best way to end the gangs and criminality is to weaken their finances by a drug war. They will probably go into other activities then, when they can't make money out of drugs since crime is what they do, but we'll handle it when the day comes.
They will give 90 billion(!) to more prisons and to the police.
The health sector and schools need more money, but there's no room for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 14, 2023 9:35:35 GMT
Sweden Latest It's an ongoing debate going on in our parliament (Riksdagen) between the government and the support party The Sweden Democrats on one side and the opposition on the left side. As the shootings have accelerated the government and the SD party have promised to continue and reinforce the war against drugs so that less and less people can use it and therefore less weapons, less crime, less sadness, less of everything bad practically. Their explanation for the policy is: if you strangle the cash flow to the gangs, they have nothing to build their "business" and they have nothing to fight about in the end. And the best way to end the gangs and criminality is to weaken their finances by a drug war. They will probably go into other activities then, when they can't make money out of drugs since crime is what they do, but we'll handle it when the day comes. They will give 90 billion(!) to more prisons and to the police. The health sector and schools need more money, but there's no room for it. "What we're doing isn't working so the best solution is to do more of the same but with more money" Sounds like a plan! 😃 |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 14, 2023 10:59:12 GMT
Sweden Latest It's an ongoing debate going on in our parliament (Riksdagen) between the government and the support party The Sweden Democrats on one side and the opposition on the left side. As the shootings have accelerated the government and the SD party have promised to continue and reinforce the war against drugs so that less and less people can use it and therefore less weapons, less crime, less sadness, less of everything bad practically. Their explanation for the policy is: if you strangle the cash flow to the gangs, they have nothing to build their "business" and they have nothing to fight about in the end. And the best way to end the gangs and criminality is to weaken their finances by a drug war. They will probably go into other activities then, when they can't make money out of drugs since crime is what they do, but we'll handle it when the day comes. They will give 90 billion(!) to more prisons and to the police. The health sector and schools need more money, but there's no room for it. "What we're doing isn't working so the best solution is to do more of the same but with more money" Sounds like a plan! 😃 All eight parties agree upon the direction. However, the four left side parties think we have to combine it with preventing methods as well (not just prison time here or abroad), like school support. Let's see how it develops. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 14, 2023 13:30:03 GMT
"What we're doing isn't working so the best solution is to do more of the same but with more money" Sounds like a plan! 😃 All eight parties agree upon the direction. However, the four left side parties think we have to combine it with preventing methods as well (not just prison time here or abroad), like school support. Let's see how it develops. Maybe Sweden can buck the trend, the Iron Law of Prohibition would indicate that there will be fewer users but the strength of the prohibited drugs will increase. filtermag.org/infographic-the-iron-law-of-prohibition/amp/ |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 15, 2023 6:09:42 GMT
More or less bang on the money, a bit more on the medicinal qualities of cannabis wouldn't have hurt but all in all spot on.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 17, 2023 5:43:42 GMT
Good (if somewhat lengthy) article on how our current drug laws were shaped by racism and religion, the latter being particularly ironic - journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503245231198526"Compared to alcohol use, the use of many illicit drugs does not seem to confer an especially strong tendency toward dependence formation, and tobacco appears to be the most addictive drug of all (Anthony et al., 1994; Lopez-Quintero et al., 2011; Schlag, 2020). For the issue of acute lethal toxicity, Gable (2004; see also Lachenmeier & Rehm, 2015) found that alcohol had a safety ratio of 10, comparing unfavorably to the safety ratios for instance of cocaine (15), MDMA (16), LSD (1000), and cannabis (>1000), and there is broad agreement in the research literature that although some forms of illicit drug use may be associated with violence, the association is much stronger for alcohol use (Boles & Miotto, 2003; Coomber et al., 2019; Hoaken & Stewart, 2003; White et al., 2019)." |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 17, 2023 6:21:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 17, 2023 7:19:03 GMT
The fentanyl crisis is something I've been meaning to look into, I'm not very well read on it tbh. As far as I know it was initially a prescribed painkiller from a pharmaceutical company owned by the Sackler family who were fined billions but somehow escaped incarceration. I think I've seen Marylandstokie on here on the thread ge started say that (the previously illegal) cannabis has helped him reduce his (previously legal) opioid use. Seems, reading the article, this is another consequence of drug prohibition, I'll need to look into it further obviously but from the link - "When fentanyl first arrived in the US as part of the illegal drug supply, "a lot of people did not want it", Prof Shover said. But the synthetic opiate became widely available as it is cheaper to produce compared to other drugs." Have you any thoughts on the article I linked in the post above yours? |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 17, 2023 7:35:12 GMT
Wasn't aware there was a documentary film about the Sackler family, I'll try and see if I can find it later
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 17, 2023 9:29:19 GMT
Lack of knowledge. Lack of consequence thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Sept 17, 2023 9:59:19 GMT
Prohibition never works you cannot close pandora's box and you create criminal gangs.
Decriminalisation whilst understandable, also doesn't work as it still allows criminals to run the 'industry'.
More severe penalties applied to drug gangs just increases the violence in the profile of the individuals prepared to break the laws due to the financial rewards available to them for doing so.
Legalisation* plus education and compassion for those who struggle with substance abuse ( not use ) is clearly the only way to mitigate the situation, in my opinion.
These factors can be clearly seen during the abortive attempt to stop alcohol in the USA .. alcohol is afterall a powerful, dangerous and addictive drug yet its use within our society is on the whole managed properly and effectively by the vast majority of those who enjoy it's effects.
There are always going to be a % of people who suffer from substance abuse problems and that % will increase during 'hard' times, but that shouldn't give legislators an excuse to crack down on the industry as a whole.
Creating a fairer, more tolerant and a happier society always improves the life experience of those who live within it.
*obviously it has to be applied across the entire Country in order to prevent one small region attracting all the potential problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2023 10:28:50 GMT
Wasn't aware there was a documentary film about the Sackler family, I'll try and see if I can find it later Interesting film, first half is a bit slow second half is quite harrowing, a lot of time is spent on the life of the lead activist Nan Goldin, apparently a famous photographer. Anyhow, basically the Sackler family owned a pharmaceutical company called Purdue Pharma which invented an opioid painkiller called Oxycontin claiming it was non addictive and incentivising doctors to prescribe it. They later, over a ten year period, siphoned off 10 billion dollars from the company and then declared it bankrupt just as it was facing 3,000 lawsuits. Somehow despite being the cause of over half a million deaths and costing the USA over a trillion dollars they escaped incarceration by making a payment of 6 billion dollars which guaranteed indemnity against prosecution for the family and their heirs. At the end of the film some members of the family are forced, as part of their settlement to sit through testimonies from parents/relatives of victims and other sufferers. The link below explains it better than me for anybody that can be bothered. theconversation.com/oxycontin-created-the-opioid-crisis-but-stigma-and-prohibition-have-fueled-it-167100Apparently there's a series called 'Painkiller' on Netflix that's a dramatised series of the whole sorry saga, I haven't seen it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 18, 2023 13:50:52 GMT
Decriminalisation whilst understandable, also doesn't work as it still allows criminals to run the 'industry'. Legalisation* plus education and compassion for those who struggle Swedish politicians don't make a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. What would you say is the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2023 14:15:50 GMT
Decriminalisation whilst understandable, also doesn't work as it still allows criminals to run the 'industry'. Legalisation* plus education and compassion for those who struggle Swedish politicians don't make a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. What would you say is the difference? Seriously, get the f out of here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 18, 2023 14:23:30 GMT
Decriminalisation whilst understandable, also doesn't work as it still allows criminals to run the 'industry'. Legalisation* plus education and compassion for those who struggle Swedish politicians don't make a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. What would you say is the difference? Decriminalisation basically removes any criminal punishments for it but doesn't make it fully legal. So you could still be given a fine, drug education or treatment. But you won't be given a criminal sentence. When it's decriminalised it's also not legal to purchase over the counter as far as I'm aware. Whereas when it's legal you can purchase from a store. So it's pretty much keeping it illegal but not giving users criminal sentences. That's my take. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2023 15:23:00 GMT
Swedish politicians don't make a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. What would you say is the difference? Decriminalisation basically removes any criminal punishments for it but doesn't make it fully legal. So you could still be given a fine, drug education or treatment. But you won't be given a criminal sentence. When it's decriminalised it's also not legal to purchase over the counter as far as I'm aware. Whereas when it's legal you can purchase from a store. So it's pretty much keeping it illegal but not giving users criminal sentences. That's my take. Think that's pretty much it, legalising also obviously means quality control, potency limits, licensing, age restrictions, safe spaces and other general regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Sept 18, 2023 19:09:24 GMT
Decriminalisation whilst understandable, also doesn't work as it still allows criminals to run the 'industry'. Legalisation* plus education and compassion for those who struggle Swedish politicians don't make a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. What would you say is the difference? Decriminalisation is when the substance remains illegal to sell but not illegal to possess.. so criminals still control supply and distribution. Legalisation involves the whole chain being controlled via government/commercial concerns like the alcohol situation. Legalisation removes the criminal element or at the very least brings them under direct government control hence breaking the link to violence and organised crime. |
|
