MPs' fury as drugs are touted on the web (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Just a minor factual point:

"M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it"

This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned.

Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9
t

klevispin wrote:
Just a minor factual point:

"M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it"

This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned.

Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9

t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy.

Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol

So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

I wonder how many extra hits the site is now getting? Wouldn't it have been advisable to try and sort it without publicity? Then again....Some people have an agenda.

Police can't sort the problem fully now on the street, so I am a bit doubtful of them dealing with the internet sorry to say.

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges.
.
I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy.
.
Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures.
.
I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

I think this just shows how much the dealers think they can get away with. There is so much drug dealing and anti-social behaviour these days, and with the police not doing anything, it has become the norm, and noone reports it any more.

You can see drug dealers dealing all day every day, not even hiding the fact they are dealing, they know they can get away with it, cos let's face it, you phone the police that they are dealing and you get the response that they'll be there within 24 hours as it's not an emergency. Pretty sure it takes less than 24 hours for them to sell the drugs.

And we know they all carry knives so if you want to confront them you'd have to break the law yourself! So how exactly are we supposed to keep the streets safe if the police wont and we cant?!

Bradford South MP, Gerry Sutcliffe said: “This should not be allowed and I would hope that the internet providers do something about it. Don't be daft Gerry they are more concerned with people swapping Movies @ Music because this costs the Motion Picture Association of America millions in lost revenue,drugs are only potentially killing kids ?.

They got the address wrong anyway, Topix.net is a news site based in Florida. On the actual site a lot of the drugs are advertised as free delivery, surely the police could set up a sting if they really wanted to, or maybe its just an MP trying to raise his profile.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges.
.
I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy.
.
Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures.
.
I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

If "illegal" drugs were produced commercially and sold as with alcohol with information about their potency clearly marked I'm sure there would be less deaths not more. You are living in a world of your own if you don't think that all drugs aren't now freely available at a price and without any control over what they actually do contain.
The vast fortune saved in policing and reduced crime and the even larger sums raised in taxation would be available for support of these and those addicted to alcohol and tobacco.
You would have thought that prohibition in the 30's in the USA would have taught us all a lesson.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

What nonsense

Let me start by saying I dont take drugs apart from the odd drink here and there but I fully understand the arguement for/ against them.

Comparisons can indeed be drawn between legal/ illegal for the main purpose of they do aim to do exactly the same thing. If you beleive that more people die each year from Tobacco or Alcohol than illegal drugs just because they are legal then you are a fool. "Drugs" like Alcohol and Nicotine are habit forming addictive drugs as are herion / cocaine etc. Lower level addictive drugs like cannabis and ecstasy are not chemically addictive. There is an arguement that they are mentally addictive which I agree with but the effects on your body compared to the two biggest killers of tobacco and alchohol are minimal on comparison.

So yes they can be compared and in all honesty drugs like ecstasy do a lot less "damage" both to the body and risks associated with the social elements of it.

So back to the original point yes you can draw comparisons and no in my opinion the Government shoudl treat all "drugs" including Tobacco, Alchohol, Codeine etc equal

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote:
Just a minor factual point:

"M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it"

This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned.

Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9


t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Drinking a pint of beer will not kill you, taking an unknown drug has caused deaths.

"Shipley MP Philip Davies said: “This is totally inappropriate as far as I am concerned. The police should make the internet service providers aware of this and they should take it down."
..
.
Why is fat man Davies talking about ISPs? - does he not know that people can use countless number of proxies out there? - proxies that disguise or hide your tracks on the web?

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

What nonsense

Let me start by saying I dont take drugs apart from the odd drink here and there but I fully understand the arguement for/ against them.

Comparisons can indeed be drawn between legal/ illegal for the main purpose of they do aim to do exactly the same thing. If you beleive that more people die each year from Tobacco or Alcohol than illegal drugs just because they are legal then you are a fool. "Drugs" like Alcohol and Nicotine are habit forming addictive drugs as are herion / cocaine etc. Lower level addictive drugs like cannabis and ecstasy are not chemically addictive. There is an arguement that they are mentally addictive which I agree with but the effects on your body compared to the two biggest killers of tobacco and alchohol are minimal on comparison.

So yes they can be compared and in all honesty drugs like ecstasy do a lot less "damage" both to the body and risks associated with the social elements of it.

So back to the original point yes you can draw comparisons and no in my opinion the Government shoudl treat all "drugs" including Tobacco, Alchohol, Codeine etc equal

How can you compare Tobacco and Alcohol together. When cigarettes and cigars are the only product on the market that when used as intended will kill. Alcohol will not kill you if used as intended, its when you use it excessively that it could kill the same with paracetamol. Other drugs have not been around long enough to know the full extent of the long term damage.

markjoe wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

What nonsense Let me start by saying I dont take drugs apart from the odd drink here and there but I fully understand the arguement for/ against them. Comparisons can indeed be drawn between legal/ illegal for the main purpose of they do aim to do exactly the same thing. If you beleive that more people die each year from Tobacco or Alcohol than illegal drugs just because they are legal then you are a fool. "Drugs" like Alcohol and Nicotine are habit forming addictive drugs as are herion / cocaine etc. Lower level addictive drugs like cannabis and ecstasy are not chemically addictive. There is an arguement that they are mentally addictive which I agree with but the effects on your body compared to the two biggest killers of tobacco and alchohol are minimal on comparison. So yes they can be compared and in all honesty drugs like ecstasy do a lot less "damage" both to the body and risks associated with the social elements of it. So back to the original point yes you can draw comparisons and no in my opinion the Government shoudl treat all "drugs" including Tobacco, Alchohol, Codeine etc equal

How can you compare Tobacco and Alcohol together. When cigarettes and cigars are the only product on the market that when used as intended will kill. Alcohol will not kill you if used as intended, its when you use it excessively that it could kill the same with paracetamol. Other drugs have not been around long enough to know the full extent of the long term damage.

I doubt we will get through to this fella, he seems to think everyone who uses alcohol does so in excess and anyone who uses drugs does so on a one off basis.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

markjoe wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

What nonsense Let me start by saying I dont take drugs apart from the odd drink here and there but I fully understand the arguement for/ against them. Comparisons can indeed be drawn between legal/ illegal for the main purpose of they do aim to do exactly the same thing. If you beleive that more people die each year from Tobacco or Alcohol than illegal drugs just because they are legal then you are a fool. "Drugs" like Alcohol and Nicotine are habit forming addictive drugs as are herion / cocaine etc. Lower level addictive drugs like cannabis and ecstasy are not chemically addictive. There is an arguement that they are mentally addictive which I agree with but the effects on your body compared to the two biggest killers of tobacco and alchohol are minimal on comparison. So yes they can be compared and in all honesty drugs like ecstasy do a lot less "damage" both to the body and risks associated with the social elements of it. So back to the original point yes you can draw comparisons and no in my opinion the Government shoudl treat all "drugs" including Tobacco, Alchohol, Codeine etc equal

How can you compare Tobacco and Alcohol together. When cigarettes and cigars are the only product on the market that when used as intended will kill. Alcohol will not kill you if used as intended, its when you use it excessively that it could kill the same with paracetamol. Other drugs have not been around long enough to know the full extent of the long term damage.

I doubt we will get through to this fella, he seems to think everyone who uses alcohol does so in excess and anyone who uses drugs does so on a one off basis.

Actually no I dont think that at all.

Any yes any drug including alcohol, tobacco, cocaine etc etc etc taken in excess or regulary results in detrimental effects on your health. You seem to be under the illusion that Alcohol consumed under the guidelines of units has no effect on your body at all

Here's something for you alcohol lovers:
.
"£3bn cost of alcohol to NHS every year"
.
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/health
news/5561217/3bn-cos
t-of-alcohol-to-NHS-
every-year.html
..
.
And who's paying for all that? - that's right; the average Joe who's just trying to make ends meet.
.
You make me sick.

Amazing how all the local MPs are willing to comment on this subject. Yet when Anne Cryer was recently talking about child grooming on look North, she accused local W. Yorks MPs of being more concerned with not jeopardising their relationship with the Pakistani community than they were with child rape, we hear NOTHING. Equally significant is the fact that Christa Ackroyd didn’t think this was anything out of the ordinary!

Victor Clayton wrote:
Amazing how all the local MPs are willing to comment on this subject. Yet when Anne Cryer was recently talking about child grooming on look North, she accused local W. Yorks MPs of being more concerned with not jeopardising their relationship with the Pakistani community than they were with child rape, we hear NOTHING. Equally significant is the fact that Christa Ackroyd didn’t think this was anything out of the ordinary!

That's because Asians engaging in that sick action are few and far between.
.
Just because it's on the news and in the media, doesn't mean it's widespread.
.
And funny how you don't mention the majority of paedophiles who are *White* males....

John_Wayne wrote:
Here's something for you alcohol lovers:
.
"£3bn cost of alcohol to NHS every year"
.
http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/health/health

news/5561217/3bn-cos

t-of-alcohol-to-NHS-

every-year.html
..
.
And who's paying for all that? - that's right; the average Joe who's just trying to make ends meet.
.
You make me sick.

You might also consider how much revenue goes into the system via alcohol sales duty, It is considerably more than the figure you just quoted, so who is benefiting from the excess? It might well be you! There is something of a dilemma for you, Something the great anti-everything western Iona benefits from (could be the tarmac on your street or the lighting or almost anything that you don't buy directly yourself) is sponsored by alcohol sales! Hahahaha! Time for a glass of wine methinks.

Billcliff wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

If "illegal" drugs were produced commercially and sold as with alcohol with information about their potency clearly marked I'm sure there would be less deaths not more. You are living in a world of your own if you don't think that all drugs aren't now freely available at a price and without any control over what they actually do contain. The vast fortune saved in policing and reduced crime and the even larger sums raised in taxation would be available for support of these and those addicted to alcohol and tobacco. You would have thought that prohibition in the 30's in the USA would have taught us all a lesson.

I would go even further. The war on drugs was lost a long time ago so I would like a new approach.

I would like to see the government produce and sell these drugs at cost. Drug dealers would become redundant. The product would be pure meaning we would have fewer hospital admissions resulting from contamination. Drug users could be registered, monitored and advised in a better way. Insurance premiums would come down as we wouldn't have the ammount of crime because users would have access to drugs. The police would be able to spend more time catching other criminals due to the reduction of other crime. The taliban would lose a major source of income.

BD16 wrote:

Billcliff wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

If "illegal" drugs were produced commercially and sold as with alcohol with information about their potency clearly marked I'm sure there would be less deaths not more. You are living in a world of your own if you don't think that all drugs aren't now freely available at a price and without any control over what they actually do contain. The vast fortune saved in policing and reduced crime and the even larger sums raised in taxation would be available for support of these and those addicted to alcohol and tobacco. You would have thought that prohibition in the 30's in the USA would have taught us all a lesson.

I would go even further. The war on drugs was lost a long time ago so I would like a new approach. I would like to see the government produce and sell these drugs at cost. Drug dealers would become redundant. The product would be pure meaning we would have fewer hospital admissions resulting from contamination. Drug users could be registered, monitored and advised in a better way. Insurance premiums would come down as we wouldn't have the ammount of crime because users would have access to drugs. The police would be able to spend more time catching other criminals due to the reduction of other crime. The taliban would lose a major source of income.

Although this suggestion makes perfect sense and in my opinion has no real downsides apart from the moral/ ethics one no Government this side of 2100 will make that change for fear of the bridage of people commenting on here for example that think there is a huge difference between alcohol / nicotine / cannabis etc etc

John_Wayne wrote:

Victor Clayton wrote:
Amazing how all the local MPs are willing to comment on this subject. Yet when Anne Cryer was recently talking about child grooming on look North, she accused local W. Yorks MPs of being more concerned with not jeopardising their relationship with the Pakistani community than they were with child rape, we hear NOTHING. Equally significant is the fact that Christa Ackroyd didn’t think this was anything out of the ordinary!

That's because Asians engaging in that sick action are few and far between.
.
Just because it's on the news and in the media, doesn't mean it's widespread.
.
And funny how you don't mention the majority of paedophiles who are *White* males....

Seeing as the majority of males in this country are white, that is understandable as is the point that the figures for none white paedophiles are clouded by the fact that they are less likely to be reported by their victims.
Grooming of young girls is disproportionately high in Asian males according to all released information.
You should actually read Victors post and research what he mentions.

Albion. wrote:

John_Wayne wrote:

Victor Clayton wrote:
Amazing how all the local MPs are willing to comment on this subject. Yet when Anne Cryer was recently talking about child grooming on look North, she accused local W. Yorks MPs of being more concerned with not jeopardising their relationship with the Pakistani community than they were with child rape, we hear NOTHING. Equally significant is the fact that Christa Ackroyd didn’t think this was anything out of the ordinary!

That's because Asians engaging in that sick action are few and far between.
.
Just because it's on the news and in the media, doesn't mean it's widespread.
.
And funny how you don't mention the majority of paedophiles who are *White* males....

Seeing as the majority of males in this country are white, that is understandable as is the point that the figures for none white paedophiles are clouded by the fact that they are less likely to be reported by their victims.
Grooming of young girls is disproportionately high in Asian males according to all released information.
You should actually read Victors post and research what he mentions.

I did read his post and it was full of half-truth and nonsense.
.
Oh, and re. alcohol and taxes; you forget *I* also pay my taxes.

John_Wayne wrote:

Albion. wrote:

John_Wayne wrote:

Victor Clayton wrote:
Amazing how all the local MPs are willing to comment on this subject. Yet when Anne Cryer was recently talking about child grooming on look North, she accused local W. Yorks MPs of being more concerned with not jeopardising their relationship with the Pakistani community than they were with child rape, we hear NOTHING. Equally significant is the fact that Christa Ackroyd didn’t think this was anything out of the ordinary!

That's because Asians engaging in that sick action are few and far between.
.
Just because it's on the news and in the media, doesn't mean it's widespread.
.
And funny how you don't mention the majority of paedophiles who are *White* males....

Seeing as the majority of males in this country are white, that is understandable as is the point that the figures for none white paedophiles are clouded by the fact that they are less likely to be reported by their victims.
Grooming of young girls is disproportionately high in Asian males according to all released information.
You should actually read Victors post and research what he mentions.

I did read his post and it was full of half-truth and nonsense.
.
Oh, and re. alcohol and taxes; you forget *I* also pay my taxes.

Do you pay alcohol duty? I never mentioned taxes, we all pay them, even pensioners like me.
The accuracy of his post might be slightly dubious but it doesn't contain totally unrelated points in an attempt to deflect things (as is your usual tactic).

Andy2010 wrote:

BD16 wrote:

Billcliff wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

If "illegal" drugs were produced commercially and sold as with alcohol with information about their potency clearly marked I'm sure there would be less deaths not more. You are living in a world of your own if you don't think that all drugs aren't now freely available at a price and without any control over what they actually do contain. The vast fortune saved in policing and reduced crime and the even larger sums raised in taxation would be available for support of these and those addicted to alcohol and tobacco. You would have thought that prohibition in the 30's in the USA would have taught us all a lesson.

I would go even further. The war on drugs was lost a long time ago so I would like a new approach. I would like to see the government produce and sell these drugs at cost. Drug dealers would become redundant. The product would be pure meaning we would have fewer hospital admissions resulting from contamination. Drug users could be registered, monitored and advised in a better way. Insurance premiums would come down as we wouldn't have the ammount of crime because users would have access to drugs. The police would be able to spend more time catching other criminals due to the reduction of other crime. The taliban would lose a major source of income.

Although this suggestion makes perfect sense and in my opinion has no real downsides apart from the moral/ ethics one no Government this side of 2100 will make that change for fear of the bridage of people commenting on here for example that think there is a huge difference between alcohol / nicotine / cannabis etc etc

I think if we had the medical knowledge we have now when tobacco was first introduced to Europe we would have had a far different attitude towards it.

Alcohol has been with us for 1000's of years so we are never going to change the laws on its consumption very much.

I don't have a great knowledge of drugs but most of the ones mentioned seem quite recent when compared to alcohol. I think because we are far more advanced with medical knowledge now we have been able to make decisions on their use before they became commonly available for general consumption. That, to me, explains the differing approach to alcohol and tobacco on the one hand and drugs on the other.

I like the alarmist catch-phrases like “peddling misery”. Reminds me of cycling up a hill.

FreddyF wrote:
I like the alarmist catch-phrases like “peddling misery”. Reminds me of cycling up a hill.

lol "peddling misery" when in fact they are peddling something completely opposite

“We are fully aware that the internet holds the potential to act as a platform for a host of unlawful activities, including the sale of drugs or so called legal highs." - Is there some part of the word "Legal" that West Yorkshire Police Drugs Co-ordinator, Bryan Dent hasn't grasped?

If I site is selling a legal substance, not advertised in a misleading way, then by definition it is not acting "unlawfully".

If the the substance is a health concern then that is a matter for a health professional to comment on, not a policeman. It's not their job.

FreddyF wrote:
“We are fully aware that the internet holds the potential to act as a platform for a host of unlawful activities, including the sale of drugs or so called legal highs." - Is there some part of the word "Legal" that West Yorkshire Police Drugs Co-ordinator, Bryan Dent hasn't grasped? If I site is selling a legal substance, not advertised in a misleading way, then by definition it is not acting "unlawfully". If the the substance is a health concern then that is a matter for a health professional to comment on, not a policeman. It's not their job.

well when our own government dont listen to their own appointed medical science advisors when it comes to drugs what hope have we of anyone else in authority

These people are fearless - they know they can and do get away with peddling drugs in any which way they choose.
.
Sadly, the foundations of Bradford's economy is built on the illegal drugs industry - take it away and there will be a total financial collapse, which is why it will never happen!! The problem got getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So many people are dependent on it to live.

birday wrote:
These people are fearless - they know they can and do get away with peddling drugs in any which way they choose. . Sadly, the foundations of Bradford's economy is built on the illegal drugs industry - take it away and there will be a total financial collapse, which is why it will never happen!! The problem got getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So many people are dependent on it to live.

birday wrote:
These people are fearless - they know they can and do get away with peddling drugs in any which way they choose.

That's another reason for legalising them. Imagine the drop in price of 2nd hand 4x4s if they did. I don't believe that Bradfords economy is based on drugs though.

BD16 wrote:

birday wrote: These people are fearless - they know they can and do get away with peddling drugs in any which way they choose. . Sadly, the foundations of Bradford's economy is built on the illegal drugs industry - take it away and there will be a total financial collapse, which is why it will never happen!! The problem got getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So many people are dependent on it to live.

birday wrote: These people are fearless - they know they can and do get away with peddling drugs in any which way they choose. That's another reason for legalising them. Imagine the drop in price of 2nd hand 4x4s if they did. I don't believe that Bradfords economy is based on drugs though.

ok

Drugs, takeaways and betting shops then to be more precise

"Drugs cause so much misery and there is so much crime committed by people who are fighting addictions."

Is there any evidence whatsoever that ANY of the drugs mentioned are addictive?

We have some talented cannabis growers in the region, turning out some excellent quality of a variety of different Skunk weed strains. The Blueberry is good but rather smelly and a short-lived high, I prefer Armageddon myself, also you can't go wrong with the old-school varieties such as Northern Lights/Purple Haze.
LEGALIZE CANNABIS !!!

FreddyF wrote:
I like the alarmist catch-phrases like “peddling misery”. Reminds me of cycling up a hill.

LOL yes it's interesting that that particular phrase is never applied to those selling alcohol! Aren't the local off-licences "peddling misery"?

Vegan Justice wrote:
We have some talented cannabis growers in the region, turning out some excellent quality of a variety of different Skunk weed strains. The Blueberry is good but rather smelly and a short-lived high, I prefer Armageddon myself, also you can't go wrong with the old-school varieties such as Northern Lights/Purple Haze. LEGALIZE CANNABIS !!!

That explains why you are so paranoid about the Government destroying its own people.
It goes someway to explain why you talk so much sh1te as well.

I find it laughable that a member of this current cabal of crooks in government is complaining about other people "peddling misery". Perhaps if we had a government that created jobs rather than kowtow to their mates in the banking sector there wouldn't be so many people turning to taking/selling drugs due to unemployment/depress
ion/desperation. I'm not however, condoning the actions of the people on these websites but I am suggesting that we look at the root of the drugs problem in Britain and deal with it proactively. I personally believe that all drugs should be legal when you consider that the two most dangerous ones (tobacco & alcohol) are legal. This way the trade can be properly regulated, therefore less dangerous and it cuts out a lifeline for all the scumbag gangsters who currently run the trade. Prohibition is an unwinnable battle, whatever your personal view on narcotics.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this article. The Topix website has forums DEDICATED to drug use and the selling of drugs and the company is well aware of it. Topix is the worst gossip, cyberbullying site in the United States and the company doesn't care. The only chance of anything being removed is basically when the media goes after that evil company and they don't want the bad publicity. They don't monitor their own site or even require their users to register for accounts before posting. In other words, it is the world's easiest site to sell drugs, prostitution and the bullying on the site is morally deplorable and the company justifies that behavior. Very rarely is anything good posted on Topix.

markjoe wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Mekon wrote:

klevispin wrote: Just a minor factual point: "M-kat – the class B drug Mephedrone banned last year after two teenagers died after taking it" This appears to be a reference to the case of Louis Wainwright and Nicholas Smith in 2010, who it was later found didn't actually take the drug mentioned. Some journalists who did bother to do their research, wrote about it here: http://gu.com/p/2hb9 t

Funny how just after two deaths we ban something...millions of deaths later from alcohol we just slap more tax on.

Don't want people drinking alcohol, then there are plenty of countries in the world where you can live without it. How about Saudi Arabia?

I dont think the poster was saying we should ban alcohol but merely pointing out the double standards when its comes to the Governments Drug and Alcohol Policy. Estimates say about 114,000 people die from smoking related illnesses each year. 5000 to 40000 relating to Alcohol and 250 associated with Ecstasy since 1994 in total. Most the Ecstasy deaths werent actually caused by the drug itself but by either over comsumption of water or alcohol So the point is which is the most dangerous ? Clearly Alcohol and Tobacco yet these are legal !

If drugs were availible like alcohol and tobacco the number of deaths would be off the scale. You can't compare apples and oranges. . I bet more people have smoked in one day that have ever taken ecstasy. . Drawing direct comparisons with something that is legal and something that is illegal will just give you meaning less figures. . I'm sure figures will probably show more people drowned in swimming pools in the UK last year than those who drowned in vats of industrial waste, but it doesn't make swimming in industrial waste safer tha swimming in a swimming pool does it?

What nonsense

Let me start by saying I dont take drugs apart from the odd drink here and there but I fully understand the arguement for/ against them.

Comparisons can indeed be drawn between legal/ illegal for the main purpose of they do aim to do exactly the same thing. If you beleive that more people die each year from Tobacco or Alcohol than illegal drugs just because they are legal then you are a fool. "Drugs" like Alcohol and Nicotine are habit forming addictive drugs as are herion / cocaine etc. Lower level addictive drugs like cannabis and ecstasy are not chemically addictive. There is an arguement that they are mentally addictive which I agree with but the effects on your body compared to the two biggest killers of tobacco and alchohol are minimal on comparison.

So yes they can be compared and in all honesty drugs like ecstasy do a lot less "damage" both to the body and risks associated with the social elements of it.

So back to the original point yes you can draw comparisons and no in my opinion the Government shoudl treat all "drugs" including Tobacco, Alchohol, Codeine etc equal

How can you compare Tobacco and Alcohol together. When cigarettes and cigars are the only product on the market that when used as intended will kill. Alcohol will not kill you if used as intended, its when you use it excessively that it could kill the same with paracetamol. Other drugs have not been around long enough to know the full extent of the long term damage.

Alcohol blinded someone recently if you recall - someone bought cheap vodka and it turned out to be a contaminated product (I suspect that it was methanol, rather than ethanol).
So contaminated alcohol can kill, as can other contaminated substances: most often it is the contaminants that casue the most damage. The pure forms of most drugs will not - if taken correctly and in appropriate quantities - kill you.
I would suggest that a lot of drugs have been around considerably longer than alcohol. Opium, coca leaves, cannabis and a range of fungus hallucinogens used over millennia: they are all naturally occurring products that do not require brewing or distilling.
The real problem, as I see it, is not the drug but the behaviour of the person; while drug addiction leads people to behave in desperate ways, the consumption of alcohol in particular seems to play a large part in violent and aggressive behaviour. People that have taken ecstasy just want to hug you a lot and be your best friend; tedious, but usually harmless.

I for one think smoking should be banned. It would be one thing if it only affected the user, but it can affect all those around the smoker.

There is nothing I hate more than smokers. Even when they are not smoking, they still reek of smoke. Why should those of us who are put-off by the smell of smoking have to occupy the same bus or train as them?! If I were to set off stink bombs on public transport everyone would complain and I would be thrown off. But you dont see that happening with smokers!

The fact that smoking also affects non-users just make it seem to me that smokers have legally been given the right to poison others!!!

Ban it now!

Farsley Bantam wrote:

Vegan Justice wrote:
We have some talented cannabis growers in the region, turning out some excellent quality of a variety of different Skunk weed strains. The Blueberry is good but rather smelly and a short-lived high, I prefer Armageddon myself, also you can't go wrong with the old-school varieties such as Northern Lights/Purple Haze. LEGALIZE CANNABIS !!!

That explains why you are so paranoid about the Government destroying its own people.
It goes someway to explain why you talk so much sh1te as well.

What's your excuse?

Drugs exist, some are potentially damaging to one's health, some are not, some are legal, others are not, get over it and roll a fat one. THIS IS A NONE-STORY!

I do NOT take non-prescription, illegal drugs, but I feel persuaded by the notion that certain drugs, now illegal,, should be de-criminalised. Prohibition of alcohol in the USA NEVER worked and in fact had the OPPOSITE EFFECT!
Organised crime pedalled their non-regulated 'wares' making great profits, proving that crime paid and making a 'fool' of the law/police in the process.

The same thing is now happening in this country.

Certain drugs should be taken out of the 'domain' of the criminal and manufactured to regulated standards. Licenced premises should be able to sell certain drugs eg cannabis to those who wish to us them recreationally/at the same time offering drug rehabilitation to those who want it. The 'war' on drugs has been lost-alcohol causes many more deaths/damage anyway. The police are wasting to much time, chasing ('not the dragon'!!) but their own tales!!

I also believe that alcohol/cigarettes should NOT be for sale in supermarkts/newsagen
ts but only in off-licences/tobacco
nists. Alcohol/tobacco need to be made less readily available, particularly to highlight their ptential 'harm' and 'flag' this up to children/young people!!

We all have a go at the Police all the time but when I talk to them privately they feel the pain that they cannot do anything about it and part of the reason is it is very complicated making a drugs arrest. This may sound ridiculous - probably because it is, but if a copper arrests a dealer and doesnt follow the formalities in a rigorous way then the judge throws the case out even if the dealer's caught with a 10 kilos. On top of that even if the dealer is convicted and given 3 years of paid holiday treatment with all the facilities you can dream of, he comes out better connected and less worried about going in again as he gets a taste of the 'good life'. Just incase that isn't bad enough, 3 years means 1 year.

I am surprised more people are not inclined to deal that the great number that are already at it. If anyone thinks this is going to change because MP Davies has opened his mouth then please don't hold your breath.

Haji wrote:
We all have a go at the Police all the time but when I talk to them privately they feel the pain that they cannot do anything about it and part of the reason is it is very complicated making a drugs arrest. This may sound ridiculous - probably because it is, but if a copper arrests a dealer and doesnt follow the formalities in a rigorous way then the judge throws the case out even if the dealer's caught with a 10 kilos. On top of that even if the dealer is convicted and given 3 years of paid holiday treatment with all the facilities you can dream of, he comes out better connected and less worried about going in again as he gets a taste of the 'good life'. Just incase that isn't bad enough, 3 years means 1 year.

I am surprised more people are not inclined to deal that the great number that are already at it. If anyone thinks this is going to change because MP Davies has opened his mouth then please don't hold your breath.

Exactly right, look how many dealers carry on their trade while on bail or within days of being released.

This MP is a fecking fool. Personally I've just been on the site on question and managed to get some lovely diazepam at a grand price within an hour of ordering.
This foom of an MP, who if so far removed from active society wants to help 'reduce drug addicts misery' by siezing the drugs that are being sold and arresting the people selling them. Does he not understand that when drugs are siezed the only thing that happens is that supply decreases and demand decreases. When this happens the price of the oh so evil psychoactive substance just increases. When the price increases this further plunges the addict into more desperation to get his hit, increasing the chances that he will commit crime to fund his habit.

If, instead drugs were legalised, the people who are addicted to such a drug could buy the drugs off the government at an entirelyreasonable price, knowing that what they are getting is pure and safe rather than cut with god knows what and sold by a less than desirable person.

The reason the police do nothing to stop it is because anybody with half a brain in their heads understands that prohibition has never worked and never will work. A human being, no matter who is born with free will and if that human being so choses to smoke cannibis, shoot heroin or take some MDMA it is their choice and is harming nobody but themselves. Just like the person who goes to McDonalds every day to get two big macs, extra fries and an extra large drink.

The current situation demonises drug users and treats them like ****. When you stop treating a person, no matter who or what they are like a human being they become an animal with no regard for the society of the supposedly open minded individuals who kick up a shitstorm when someone makes a comment on race or religion but has no problem labeling someone who has a legitimate mental disorder a scumbag gutter dwelling junkie.

This MP should be ashamed of himself and maybe spend a day in the real world rather than beng waited on hand and foot by his many butlers and maids on our taxpayer money.

Posting the website here was bad enough but posting prices as well is ridiculous. Especially when those prices are so far below street price that it will attract a huge number of people to that site! Also, the prices you've quoted for MDMA are too cheap, unless 'Marc Meneaud' actually bought and received this at those prices I would wager that this is a scam. Anyone police officer in the country could tell you this. You have basically advertised (and inadvertently given credence to) a rather pricey scam.