Giving up alcohol

[Dingdong]

I think 24 units a week is in no way excessive. ...

Maybe also provide your medical qualifications/experience/training/research you base this level on and explain why others are so wrong.

Ian

Fwiw I have two degrees in Forensic Psychology. My first degree was general Medicine. I deal with people who have come into the criminal justice system through their alcohol or drug use, and provide reports on their mental and physical state and where they range on the standard clinical psychological measurements. FWIW, from 30 years observing how the system works, I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them. There is very strong evidence to support this approach from Canada. There, you can only purchase alcohol over 8% , ie wine or spirits, from the SAC (a state run booze hypermarket), which is a government distribution body which collects tax revenue at source, and feeds all profits back into the health care system. It's an excellent response to alcohol problems, and costs the tax payer nothing. I would do the same for all currently illegal drugs. Sell them at quality where there is no opportunity for overdose or poisoning, and take a tax revenue from it. Which in this country would amount to a very steady income for the NHS.

Contrary to popular belief, cocaine, ecstasy, speed, marijuana and other drugs do little it no harm to the user, unless taken to extremes. No more dangerous than 40 proof spirits. They say that if alcohol was introduced tomorrow as a new drug, it would be immediately banned. Heroin is an exception, but as I've said up thread, up until 1969 anyone could ask their local GP to prescribe, legally, medical heroin for personal use on the NHS.

I'm not a libertarian as such, but I can see the massive inequality and absurdity of making these recreational drugs illegal. It criminalises people who do not belong in the system at all, and punishes those at the bottom of the chain of supply, where the real culprits normally get off Scot free. There is absolutely no cost/benefit to criminalise a user, when the money could be much better spent on prevention and ultimately a cure.

[Nearholmer]

What we don’t know, of course, is what would happen to levels of usage if all currently “illegal” drugs were legalised in the way that alcohol is, or what that would do in terms absolute numbers of people suffering severe harms as a result.

If legalising was to multiply use by, say, five times, and in so doing increase the number of addicts by five times, would that be ‘OK’ for instance?

Put another way, there does seem to be widespread agreement that the more freely available alcohol is, the more harm harm it does, so isn’t the same going to be true of all other drugs?

(I fully understand how removing criminality from the equation would be a huge positive in itself; it’s health harms that I’m driving at here)

[Dingdong]

What we don’t know, of course, is what would happen to levels of usage if all currently “illegal” drugs were legalised in the way that alcohol is, or what that would do in terms absolute numbers of people suffering severe harms as a result.

If legalising was to multiply use by, say, five times, and in so doing increase the number of addicts by five times, would that be ‘OK’ for instance?

Put another way, there does seem to be widespread agreement that the more freely available alcohol is, the more harm harm it does, so isn’t the same going to be true of all other drugs?

(I fully understand how removing criminality from the equation would be a huge positive in itself; it’s health harms that I’m driving at here)

From my own professional experience, class A drug use in the UK is now at epidemic proportions. The price of heroin has all but halved to £6 a wrap, and cocaine is at an all time low of between £55-60 per gram in most sizable cities. Previously, heroin, cocaine and even Ecstasy was a minority group problem. I've seen studies that suggest that upwards of 2 million people are using Class A stimulants on a weekly basis in this country. Like I said upthread, their use is so widespread that its the new normal now. Certainly in the professions, the choice to use Class A drugs on a semi habitual basis in preference to alcohol is evident. Alcohol is now perceived by the middle classes as a 'dangerous 'drug. Certainly as far as a number of cancer outcomes is concerned, class A drugs and intoxicants are proportionally less dangerous than the regular abuse of alcohol. By a huge factor.

By abuse I'm talking about a level of alcohol consumption of 100+ units a week. A straw poll of my recent cohort of middle class patients (I run a drop in clinic for those who admit to an alcohol problem, but do not wish to engage with AA) reveals an intake of between 1.5 to 3 bottles of wine per day, or one bottle of spirits. This would easily take them well over 100 units per week. I would class them as 'functioning alcoholics '.

It's not that difficult (given the sheer variety of new laws enacted in the last ten years) to find yourself in the criminal justice system, for the slightest of misdemeanors. Most of these, I find are alcohol, not drug related. When, for instance did you last see a violent heroin addict? They do tend to be on the whole, fairly well sedated. You could argue, from statistical analysis that alcoholics do much more harm to society than any committed, long term heroin/methadone/cocaine user.

[Nearholmer]

Are you sure you are’t falling into the trap of the policemen who see criminals everywhere they look, or firemen who can’t look around them without spotting a host of fire risks, in that your exposure to those who are drug users might give you an exaggerated impression of the proportion of people who indulge?

Are there any data that can reliably tell us what fraction of the population is using which drugs?

I’m genuinely curious, BTW, not attempting to demolish what you say, although I confess that part of the reason I’m curious is because what you say doesn’t match my impressions/perceptions.

[Dingdong]

Are you sure you are’t falling into the trap of the policeman who see criminals everywhere they look, or firemen who can’t look around them without spotting a host of fire risks, in that your exposure to those who are drug users might give you an exaggerated impression of the proportion of people who indulge?

Are there any data that can reliably tell us what fraction of the population is using which drugs?

I’m genuinely curious, BTW, not attempting to demolish what you say, although I confess that part of the reason I’m curious is because what you say doesn’t match my impressions/perceptions.

The Office For National Statistics revealed that some 1.1 million UK adults are using class A drugs. I've seen studies that put this as high as 3 million. There are approximately 40 million adults in the UK, if 3 million is a more accurate representation, then that puts us at vnearly 8% of UK adults using

This is a number which does not surprise me in the least bit.

[Dingdong]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2020

These are the ONS figures for 2020, you could probably double these figures, due to the taboo of Class A drug use, especially amongst the professional classes, who traditionally under report

[Nearholmer]

Conveniently, 8% would be a tenth of the proportion who consume alcohol to some degree, which suggests that removing all restrictions could well result in greater penetration, and therefore more addicts (and a cocaine aisle in Waitrose).

[simonineaston]

I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them.

Have you been talking to David Nutt? I recall the sort of reception his sensible suggestions received back about 15 years or so ago...
As an aside, I wonder what all the criminal types would do if most recreational drugs were legalised!

[Dingdong]

I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them.

Have you been talking to David Nutt? I recall the sort of reception his sensible suggestions received back about 15 years or so ago...
As an aside, I wonder what all the criminal types would do if most recreational drugs were legalised!

Disability Living Allowance? I'm sure they would find a suitable scam to replace their current occupation .DLA is widely abused by criminals in this country as second source of income. There are, apparently, ways round everything.

[Cugel]

I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them.

Have you been talking to David Nutt? I recall the sort of reception his sensible suggestions received back about 15 years or so ago...
As an aside, I wonder what all the criminal types would do if most recreational drugs were legalised!

Well, they would find other criminal activity to pursue or they would join the business criminal types who would employ every form of advertisement and other inducements to sell as much heroine, cocaine et al as they could. The former criminals would probably all get good jobs as "advisers".

The problem isn't so much the fact that humans enjoy drugs, intoxicants and poisons, it's that many who would eschew these things in any sane world are persuaded by businessmen (actually criminal or legalised criminal) to indulge, consume and eventually become addicted. Addiction to their product is the dream-wish of every business type who sells that product - a sells-itself product that will always be desired.

There's other causes for substance-abuse, of course, from a desire to seek escape from a degraded and demeaning existence in broken Britain to feeling a desire to take mental as well as physical risks; and several other motives. Yet a large proportion of addicts of various addictive substances and habits would not become addicts if the substances and habits were not glamorised and normalised by" the market" and it's advertising.

Personally I would legalise and tax every drug currently illegal, which would gain a government income, save tonsamoney currently spend on rozzers, courts and gaols, but also (one would hope) ensure a purity of product - free of killer additives at least. But at the same time I'd put up very large barriers to glamorising, advertising or otherwise promoting these drugs; and tax the profits of those selling them mercilessly.

Dingdong is right to suggest that a large proportion of humans will be stupid enough to follow a life of self-abuse, self-indulgence and self-neglect. But that doesn't mean that a society containing such people shouldn't a) try to wean them off their damaging habit; b: not tolerate associated criminal behaviours such as drunken wife-beating or stealing to feed a gambling habit; c) prevent the promotion for profit of addiction and things-addictive.

Cugel

[roubaixtuesday]

I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them.

Have you been talking to David Nutt? I recall the sort of reception his sensible suggestions received back about 15 years or so ago...
As an aside, I wonder what all the criminal types would do if most recreational drugs were legalised!

Well, they would find other criminal activity to pursue or they would join the business criminal types who would employ every form of advertisement and other inducements to sell as much heroine, cocaine et al as they could. The former criminals would probably all get good jobs as "advisers".

The problem isn't so much the fact that humans enjoy drugs, intoxicants and poisons, it's that many who would eschew these things in any sane world are persuaded by businessmen (actually criminal or legalised criminal) to indulge, consume and eventually become addicted. Addiction to their product is the dream-wish of every business type who sells that product - a sells-itself product that will always be desired.

There's other causes for substance-abuse, of course, from a desire to seek escape from a degraded and demeaning existence in broken Britain to feeling a desire to take mental as well as physical risks; and several other motives. Yet a large proportion of addicts of various addictive substances and habits would not become addicts if the substances and habits were not glamorised and normalised by" the market" and it's advertising.

Personally I would legalise and tax every drug currently illegal, which would gain a government income, save tonsamoney currently spend on rozzers, courts and gaols, but also (one would hope) ensure a purity of product - free of killer additives at least. But at the same time I'd put up very large barriers to glamorising, advertising or otherwise promoting these drugs; and tax the profits of those selling them mercilessly.

Dingdong is right to suggest that a large proportion of humans will be stupid enough to follow a life of self-abuse, self-indulgence and self-neglect. But that doesn't mean that a society containing such people shouldn't a) try to wean them off their damaging habit; b: not tolerate associated criminal behaviours such as drunken wife-beating or stealing to feed a gambling habit; c) prevent the promotion for profit of addiction and things-addictive.

Cugel

There is a theory that beer brought about civilisation and not vice-versa.

The story goes that wild grasses are not edible. So there is no conceivable reason why they were selected for better yields, thus enabling agriculture.

They, are however, fermentable. So it can be postulated that hunter gatherers started growing wild grasses with the purpose of brewing. Eventually they drove the evolution of edible seeds and then made bread, thereby starting agriculture and thence civilisation.

I'm not saying I believe it, but it's a great story.

Can't find a good reference right now, but this has some of the thinking

https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegr ... riculture/

[Nearholmer]

The Swedish off-licence model might have some application to drink and drugs in this imagined future. Its a state monopoly, and the shops have deliberately un-helpful opening hours. They used to look pretty grim, the sort of place you would feel ashamed to visit, but nowadays look just like any off-licence anywhere else. The on-license laws used to be very strict too, although I'm not sure they still are; I seem to recall that you had to buy a meal in order to buy a drink.

Which makes me wonder how much impact the mega-liberalisation of grog sales in this country have had, pub opening hours, eemingly 24/7 off-licenses etc.

[ossie]

It's not that difficult (given the sheer variety of new laws enacted in the last ten years) to find yourself in the criminal justice system, for the slightest of misdemeanors. Most of these, I find are alcohol, not drug related. When, for instance did you last see a violent heroin addict? They do tend to be on the whole, fairly well sedated. You could argue, from statistical analysis that alcoholics do much more harm to society than any committed, long term heroin/methadone/cocaine user.

I've been supportive of much of the stuff you've posted on the subject but having ran a drug / acquisitive crime squad for many years I'm just going to offer up the below reference heroin use. If 29 million people drink, naturally more will find themselves in the system percentage wise but the figures in relation to heroin / crack use are still quite staggering considering the numbers. Most of the criminals we dealt with (acquisitive crime) had a drug rather than alcohol addiction.

There are more than 300,000 heroin and crack addicts in England who, between them, are responsible for nearly half of all burglaries, robberies and other acquisitive crime.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... save-lives

[Mike Sales]

It's not that difficult (given the sheer variety of new laws enacted in the last ten years) to find yourself in the criminal justice system, for the slightest of misdemeanors. Most of these, I find are alcohol, not drug related. When, for instance did you last see a violent heroin addict? They do tend to be on the whole, fairly well sedated. You could argue, from statistical analysis that alcoholics do much more harm to society than any committed, long term heroin/methadone/cocaine user.

I've been supportive of much of the stuff you've posted on the subject but having ran a drug / acquisitive crime squad for many years I'm just going to offer up the below reference heroin use. If 29 million people drink, naturally more will find themselves in the system percentage wise but the figures in relation to heroin / crack use are still quite staggering considering the numbers. Most of the criminals we dealt with (acquisitive crime) had a drug rather than alcohol addition.

There are more than 300,000 heroin and crack addicts in England who, between them, are responsible for nearly half of all burglaries, robberies and other acquisitive crime.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... save-lives

Prohibition in the USA was abandoned at least in part because of the huge amount of gangster activity it enabled.
They gave up on the war on alcohol. The War on Drugs goes on.

[Mike Sales]

There is very strong evidence to support this approach from Canada. There, you can only purchase alcohol over 8% , ie wine or spirits, from the SAC (a state run booze hypermarket), which is a government distribution body which collects tax revenue at source, and feeds all profits back into the health care system.

In Sweden they have the similar Systembolaget. It has a fine, extensive stock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget

I was once accosted outside one by a drunk who wanted me to shop for him. Probably could not get served. Drunk as he was, his English was comprehensible.