He's back

[STEED]

Yes he's back and foot in mouth is at it again. This bloke is off his trolley, what power has he not to be sacked?

Outrage as publicity-mad chief constable says 'ecstasy is safer than aspirin'

Notorious chief constable Richard Brunstrom is facing demands to resign after publicly claiming that the illegal rave drug ecstasy is safer than aspirin.


In his latest bizarre proclamation, he insisted that the drug - which claims almost 50 lives a year - was a "remarkably safe substance".
And he went on to dismiss what he called "scaremongering" over the dangers, while predicting that all drugs would be legalised within ten years.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[Skybird]

You have to give him that he has obviously tested his claims on himself before.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You have to give him that he has obviously tested his claims on himself before.

If he's got time to take his foot out of his mouth that is.

[mrbeast]

Statistically speaking he might be right.

In fact it would be interesting to compare the numbers killed by ecstacy to those who die due to alcohol related reasons. :hmm:

[baggygreen]

rather than alcohol-related deaths, try aspirin-related deaths. ever.

what a clown!

[jumpy]

Well, he's certainly right about one thing: prohibition doesn't work.

I have to say that the DM are slapping it on with a trowel as usual.
If ecstasy was such a killer, why then are millions who take it every weekend still alive?
And more to the point with its rubbishy reporting, why does the DM only have 7 'victims' of this killer drug paraded on their 'story'?


Without sounding too cynical and uncaring for the loss for those families, consider the following:

Siobhan Delaney, 18 - could possibly have eaten 4 pills then drank so much water (allegedly 10 bottles then danced until 5 am) her brain swelled and killed her (see leah betts below)
Tammy Pooley, 15 - ate 5, yes, that's 5 ecstasy pills. I bet her parents didn't have a clue where she was or what she was doing.

Leah Betts, 18 - died due to excess water; swelling of the brain after drinking too much water, she drank 2 gallons of water in about 90 minutes :hmm: take any healthy person and make them drink 2 gallons of water in 90 minutes and see how much good it does them, I bet the result would be the same.

Kim Lloyd, 18 - died due to a poisonous contaminant in her pill, not the mdma itself.

Anita Gair, 17 - heart failure; why was she allowed into a club, presumably where only over 18's were permited?

Andrew Woodlock, 13 - the lad was 13 years old, for christs sake, how can parents of kids this age have so little knowledge of their own children that they can allow their child to come into contact with class A drugs?

Lisa Teasdale, 15 - what was she doing 'on a night out with friends in middlesborough' at the age of 15?


FOUR of the young people who died would still be alive today if they had had closer supervision and control. I firmly believe this.
Sure, they all died as a result of coming into contact with class A drugs, but had a parent taken an interest or said 'no' to going out late or whatever, then things may have been very different for those concerned.

I know that sounds harsh. It's meant to be. However, it shows the depth to the circumstances that the Daily Mail and grieving parents and pie in the sky politicians fail to consider from their single track emotive postition.

At least this copper blokey is saying in public what we all know privately: Prohibition is a spectacular failure and always will be, and whilst we stubbornly fight a loosing battle and continue to bury our heads in the sand, spewing out the same old patois 'drughs are baaad, mmkay?' and point blank refusing to consider any alternative to the status quo 'because of how it looks in the media/public eye' then we are certain to perpetuate the problems we have currently.

In the mean time, our stubbornness and negligence will see more rare occurrences where individuals who take mdma die in tragic and unfortunate circumstances.

[mrbeast]

Good post jumpy. Its typical of the DM to take this sort of line with a subject like this. I'd also be interested in just how accurate their claim that 50 people a year die from ecstacy poisonig is, the DM has a nasty habit of taking stats out of context or massaging the figures to back up its agenda.

The danger of ecstasy use really has to be put into perspective. IIRC around a couple of million ecstasy tablets are consumed every week in the UK, yet the numbers of deaths are relatively small when compared to deaths related to Alcohol and tobacco for example; or even drugs such as aspirin and peracetamol. A group of scientists recently carried out a study to find which drugs had the most adverse affect on people and society and guess which two came out on top? Yes legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

If you simply want to look at numbers of deaths then you would probably prevent more by banning cars than banning ecstasy.

[silentrunner]

Well the fact that both can kill you ans asprin is easier to obtain both can have deadly outcomes. But asprin actually has a reasonable use.

[kiwi_2005]

An asprin a day keeps the heart attack away.

[joegrundman]

I suspect that the percentage of deaths that occur from recreational drug use is essentially comparable to that of any other moderately risky recreational activity, such as hiking, hang gliding, sailing or angling which IIRC is the recreational activity in Britain that leads to the most deaths.

The fact is that the "official" view point is heavily invested in portraying recreational drug use as an inevitable slippery slope that leads to addiction and doom, and ignores the fact that in the west there is a vast population of essentially responsible drug users that manage to combine the weekend use of drugs with productive employment and fulfilled lives. They also tend to stop this habit when it no longer interests them with no long-term side effects so far as we know.

I believe it to be a moderately risky activity with dangers that most partakers are aware of, understand and accept. It can go out of control, but that is also true of many other activites that are not illegalised.

The net result of this investment by the states in this highly negative view of drug use is that intelligent discussion on the topic is very difficult to have, as almost anyone who is in a position to affect change will have their career prospects damaged if they voice a contrary opinion.

The amount of money that is involved in the illegal drugs trade is vast, comparable in scale some say to the automobile trade. You cannot fight that sort of demand. All the public rhetoric insures is that the suppliers are gangsters, that the methods of guaranteeing your business rights are violent, that the profits are untaxed, and that qualilty control is poor.

[TteFAboB]

Clever. I think I know now how to get druggies out of the closet.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Clever. I think I know now how to get druggies out of the closet.

Not clever, and you don't know. But you illustrate part of my point for me.

You imply that in this discussion, if you don't think and speak like "you", you must be one of "them".

[Rose]

Stay with the sticky icky herbals . No need to mess yourself up with synthetic stuff.

[Peto]

It might not kill you but it can sure change your life. Usually not for the better.

Playing in Rock & Roll bands for years, I've seen my share of nastiness and (in my youth) had a tumble with a time or so myself. I survived. And I'm still reasonably sane (according to me ). And I wouldn't go back to "do things different". If I did, I might not be as fortunate this time.

But--I've seen more people die from being drunk and doing stupid things than I have from all other drugs combined. Not that a glass of wine is bad (it's not), it's just when one glass becomes 2 bottles and a road trip....

It's ALL dangerous and can have disastrous outcomes and effects in many lives. Again--I was lucky. (and that's all I got to say about that )

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Not clever, and you don't know. But you illustrate part of my point for me.

You imply that in this discussion, if you don't think and speak like "you", you must be one of "them".

Actually, jumpy is a confessed druggie, so I imply nothing, I take his word and assume he's not a liar.