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.

[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.

[jumpy]

^^
gee, thanks for that makes me feel all warm inside.
'Druggie' is not quite how I'd choose to describe myself, you make it sound like I had a 'problem'...

I think in many circumstances, those who's experience of drugs is gained vicariously from tabloid newspapers like the daily mail (and I am not pointing any fingers, just talking generally) often tend to think that anyone who uses drugs is the sort of person who will mugg you for the cash for their next fix. This is hardly surprising as newspapers don't report how 'cheech' went to work and paid his taxes just like everyone else in the country, then relaxed, at home at the end of a hard day, with a spliff or two.
There's a lot of things many people do before they get old enough to become bored of a certain lifestyle or scene. For me all of those kinds of excesses were a time to be enjoyed as a student, coupled with the advice from my grandmother - "All things in moderation."
Over the years I've steered well clear of all of the hard drugs like heroine and crack etc. I know a few people who have fallen foul of such things; it's quite sad really because in the end they just couldn't help themselves.

I know from close personal experience that the most pitiable situation is not from when a person has died through drug use and the inevitable effect this has on their family and friends, but the individual who looses their mind. It is a terrible thing to see a person walking about normally but whose personality is gone, totally destroyed, not through excessive use, nor a 'one off' that is reported so often in the press... 'But of course, my son/daughter was only doing it for the first time" - in my experience this is never the case. But what other consolation can a grieving parent have at such a time? To state otherwise would be to admitt to themselves that there was a whole side to their child that they had no knowledge of whatsoever.

But that is the risk you took as an informed 20 year old. In such an event, I'm convinced that any psychosis or other mental aberration based upon such a limited period when the chemicals are changing brain chemistry is entirely due to the hallucinogens compounding an underlying condition. Obviously this differs with long term heavy exposure and we can therefore draw the conclusion that taking drugs long germ can permanently alter brain chemistry, in the same way we know that long term heavy exposure to alcohol alters brain chemistry and damages your liver.


The simple fact of the matter is this: people will always find a way to do or have the things they want, across all levels of society, from rich to poor.
Now, one may be forgiven for making the connection that I think all drugs should be legalised. Not so. Were it up to me, tobacco would not be on sale over the counter here in the UK due to its highly addictive nature (not the fact that it causes cancer in some smokers). The only reason it is not banned today is because of business interests and revenue generating. How calculating is that?! 'Public interest' my backside, none of it has and basis in decision-making with the same fair criteria and study it ought to be attributed.

I believe we need to take a more grown up approach to the issues that surround these charged topics and not let ourselves be frightened of speaking our minds and having a proper public discourse on the matter here in the UK. But I don't really see it happening yet. Those who do publicly stand out from the crowd in this respect can enjoy the ridicule of the tabloid press and the ostracism from their peers that one might expect were you to announce that you were a leper, whilst enjoying the shallow end of the public swimming baths.

Anyway, I'm done with the common sense talk for today. Until someone stepps up and makes some progress, I and many others just have to put up with knee jerk legislation and the occasional risk of being branded dangerous criminal deviants by the daily mail :rotfl: ...I think I can probably sleep quite soundly at night without undue anxiety about that!