Oh That's Alright Then

No that would never happen because it would be impossible to implement, it’s a vast over simplification if a hugely complex issue. 

It’s also entirely reactive, we need to be proactive about health issues in this country if people can seek treatment and advice on non-threatening issues/illnesses they’re more likely to resolve before they become threatening.

Nobody is naive enough to think a couple of extra quid each would solve all of the issues in the NHS, but  it would help prevent crises like the one its in at the moment. The government have been warned about this by healthcare professionals and politicians including their own for months, they have ignored it.

Time for a change.

T.R.O.Y wrote:It’s also entirely reactive, we need to be proactive about health issues in this country if people can seek treatment and advice on non-threatening issues/illnesses they’re more likely to resolve before they become threatening.

Isn't that just naïve though? People have known for years that fried food and fizzy drinks make you fat, but it doesn't stop people filling their shopping trolley with crap. Same for smoking and drinking.

It will never happen.

But trust me, if people had to pay for treatment they'd think twice about getting into a scrap on a Friday night.

Bollotom2014 wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Don't start this shit again, the NHS has been underfunded for 30 years, several governments have failed to get a grip of this problem.

Trash, on just about every measure Labour's record is an improvement on what has been on offer since 2010. You make this nonsense argument every time and it's baseless, present some facts to support or give it a rest.

The argument there is no difference between the parties is now redundant, there is a clear choice on offer between continued austerity and investment. Labour's manifesto was popular because it made a clear distinction from the current path, I hope they get the opportunity to put it into action sooner rather than later.

When Labour were last in power, costs were low. Costs since have sky rocketed and there are a couple more tiers of management to be paid for. Latest projection is a further £30 Billion needed by 2020.
  Now it's going to be a brave government but it's about time for a taxation change. I reckon everyone should be taxed an extra penny or two, even taking the same percentage from pensioners and benefits claimants. It's the only fair way to do it.  And get the employers to pay a fair wage without the need of working tax credits. 
  Having said that we could give £30 Billion to the NHS tomorrow and they would still say it wasn't enough. I'm lucky. I get treatment within a few hours if I need it but it makes me angry to see civvy folk queuing in hospitals on trolleys, in ambulances and in corridors. Perhaps the super hospitals are too much now and regional infirmaries better.
  I had occasion to go to the old military hospital at Woolwich a couple of weeks ago. It's now a modern super-hospital. Took me about fifteen minutes to walk from one end to the other. 2000 meals three times a day, hundreds of medical staff and support staff. Must cost a fortune to run and that is just one hospital. Frightening to think how it will be in a few years.
   It's more than a political football now. We should all be involved.

Well said.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:It’s also entirely reactive, we need to be proactive about health issues in this country if people can seek treatment and advice on non-threatening issues/illnesses they’re more likely to resolve before they become threatening.

Isn't that just naïve though? People have known for years that fried food and fizzy drinks make you fat, but it doesn't stop people filling their shopping trolley with crap. Same for smoking and drinking.

It will never happen.

But trust me, if people had to pay for treatment they'd think twice about getting into a scrap on a Friday night.

Smoking has been in decline since the price sky rocketed, government policy can have an affect as it will with a future sugar tax.

But you’re talking about a separate issue, I’m talking about health treatments both mental and physical that can reduce future risk of serious disease. 

Something that wouldn’t be severe enough to warrant free treatment under your policy Like preemptive cancer surgery.

xmiles wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:The former chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, has reignited criticism of Labour's stewardship of the economy with a note for his successor which said "there's no money left".

That was a joke - admittedly a poor one - not a fact. The Tories friends in the banks destroyed the economy not the Labour government who were forced to waste £850 billion bailing out the banks.

It was a Joke but badly backfired because the Tories continue to use it, despite them at least doubling the debt since 2010, they continue to play the economy card.

Back To the NHS so someone turns up at A&E and receives treatment WHO decides if it is self harming, many people do many silly things over and above the obvious of drink/drugs. What about playing football and you break a leg ? no one makes you play so for me thin end of the wedge and not in line with the principal of what the NHS was formed for. Before long a kid will be refused treatment because his mum or dad was fat. Not going to happen any time soon.

I support the idea that we should put a penny on tax rates to pay extra money to the NHS but unfortunately most people are too selfish to support this when they actually vote. The Lib Dems advocated this (along with the very sensible mansion tax) and look what happened to them. Even better would be getting rich individuals and companies to pay a fair share of tax but that will never happen with the Tories in power and is pretty unlikely even if Corbyn wins a majority at the next election.

As for Nat's idea, sadly it just won't work as others have already pointed out. Trying to introduce common sense into this kind of debate always seems to end badly. Remember what happened to Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser. He was sacked a day after pointing out that ecstasy and LSD were far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and that more people die falling off horses than die from taking ecstasy.

xmiles wrote:
... pointing out that ecstasy and LSD were far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and that more people die falling off horses than die from taking ecstasy.

On the other hand, cannabis is assumed by many to be harmless, even beneficial for some, yet it is common knowledge in clinical psychologists' circles that it can lead to disastrous psychosis and schizophrenia, as my own family can testify.
Very upsetting to hear a few ignorant MPs and celebs advocating its legalisation. Listen to the experts in this field!!

I was pleased to see a recent proposal that the dangers of using cannabis should be taught in schools.

wessy wrote:Back To the NHS so someone turns up at A&E and receives treatment WHO decides if it is self harming, many people do many silly things over and above the obvious of drink/drugs. What about playing football and you break a leg ? no one makes you play so for me thin end of the wedge and not in line with the principal of what the NHS was formed for. Before long a kid will be refused treatment because his mum or dad was fat.  Not going to happen any time soon.

Of course this isn't what the NHS was formed for, but that was decades ago, in 2018 the NHS and society are a completely different thing.

The NHS can't go on in its current format, so why not make people pay to have their broken legs and arms mended? Of course it's not perfect, but surely it's better than the system we have now - people dying because the NHS can't afford to pay for the drugs to keep them alive.

Imagine being told the NHS can't give you the drugs to keep you alive, but in the next room a couple are getting 3 cycles of IVF treatment off the NHS, and in the room next to that someone is having a gastric band fitted.

Outrageous.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
The NHS can't go on in its current format, so why not make people pay to have their broken legs and arms mended? Of course it's not perfect, but surely it's better than the system we have now - people dying because the NHS can't afford to pay for the drugs to keep them alive.

Imagine being told the NHS can't give you the drugs to keep you alive, but in the next room a couple are getting 3 cycles of IVF treatment off the NHS, and in the room next to that someone is having a gastric band fitted.

There could and probably will be some move towards the American approach whereby we have to pay for our own medical bills and to do this we'll take out some form of medical insurance to cover the cost.
That would mean we'd have to pay regularly into an insurance scheme that uses the millions we contribute as investment money to build up a gigantic pot to fund medical treatment,

Hang on a minute. Isn't that what we do already with our National Insurance contributions? Are we not already paying for our own treatment?

okocha wrote:

xmiles wrote:
... pointing out that ecstasy and LSD were far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and that more people die falling off horses than die from taking ecstasy.

On the other hand, cannabis is assumed by many to be harmless, even beneficial for some, yet it is common knowledge in clinical psychologists' circles that it can lead to disastrous psychosis and schizophrenia, as my own family can testify.
Very upsetting to hear a few ignorant MPs and celebs advocating its legalisation. Listen to the experts in this field!!

I was pleased to see a recent proposal that the dangers of using cannabis should be taught in schools.

Why do you call people advocating the legalisation of cannabis ignorant? Plenty of experts agree that legalising it would reduce the problem by making the consumption of it more controlled and more informed. And as for teaching kids about the dangers of using it, surely it is a greater priority to teach them about the dangers of using alcohol and tobacco.

My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

I think there are two sides with this argument. The ones decrying the use of cannabis as in it's "Illegal state" anyone can make it, adulterate it and flog it in any condition. On the other side are the ones who say it should be legalised are probably assuming it's grown and made under controlled conditions so that it is safe as much as a product can be.
  I know there are certain states around the world where it is legal for medicinal purposes and some where it's available for recreational use. Here would be a massive tax duty boosting product for the government. However, I have concerns that if it is unrestricted then you might have aircrew, ships crew, train drivers, lorry drivers, machinery operators all getting high and filling up hospital wards, or are we advocating "Legal Cannabis" only for some, or at certain times? Would you get on an aeroplane to The Costas knowing the pilot was as high as a kite? Lots of problems would remain.

okocha wrote:My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

Legalisation will never prevent casual use and those with a predisposition like your nephew will always be vulnerable. I think we both agree that it is very important to provide kids with the right education about these things.

However I do think legalisation of all drugs is the only practical way forward. The "war on drugs" is a massively expensive failure. It does not stop people taking drugs which are clearly harmful to themselves and/or becoming addicted. It provides most of the money circulating in the criminal community. It is a very difficult process getting this discussed in a rational manner because of the knee jerk reaction of the media and politicians as Professor Nutter found out.

Bollotom2014 wrote:I think there are two sides with this argument. The ones decrying the use of cannabis as in it's "Illegal state" anyone can make it, adulterate it and flog it in any condition. On the other side are the ones who say it should be legalised are probably assuming it's grown and made under controlled conditions so that it is safe as much as a product can be.
  I know there are certain states around the world where it is legal for medicinal purposes and some where it's available for recreational use. Here would be a massive tax duty boosting product for the government. However, I have concerns that if it is unrestricted then you might have aircrew, ships crew, train drivers, lorry drivers, machinery operators all getting high and filling up hospital wards, or are we advocating "Legal Cannabis" only for some, or at certain times? Would you get on an aeroplane to The Costas knowing the pilot was as high as a kite? Lots of problems would remain.

If you legalise drugs you would need to apply the same standards as you do to alcohol i.e. not sold to minors and not to be used at inappropriate times. It is already an offence to drive a car, pilot a plane, etc whilst under the influence of drugs.

Yes it would need controls and yes there would be abuse as there is with alcohol and tobacco, however there are plenty of arguments for legalisation that include health, economic and social benefits.
* Better informed decision making including those pertaining to people with latent mental health issues that could be exacerbated by drugs/alcohol
* Massive tax revenues that could be diverted to education, control and where necessary treatment. 
* Job creation in the drugs industry - leading to further tax revenues
* Elimination of impurities due to the current practice of cutting for profit. Many argue that the crap they cut drugs with does more harm than the actual drugs.
* Dosage control to minimise the risk of overdose
* Undermining the main income of organised crime
* Reduction of street, gang crime and robbery 
* Transparency
* Huge savings for the judiciary and prison systems

The issue for cannabis is that it remains in the bloodstream for a month so at what point are people fit to e.g. use machinery given that they are no longer stoned after a few hours? The missus employs construction apprentices and they are tested monthly - that would have to become widespread practice in the workplace. 
Drugs carry huge risks for a small percentage of the population (more people die in the uk falling off horses than cannabis, ecstasy and LSD use combined for example) but if those risks can be further reduced by legalisation and the cost of legalisation is more than covered by the income generated and there are other benefits in terms of crime reduction I reckon we should try to overcome historical prejudices based on disinformation and exceptions to the rule and give it a go.
As regards the money - which we'll need post-Brexit - California is looking at an annual tax income (cultivation tax and retail tax only) of $2 billion this year rising to $4 billion by 2020 - and that's just one state and for recreational use only. On top of that there's a whopping $6.27 billion expected from medical marijuana sales by 2020. Then there's are massive savings to be made on the judicial system in terms of prosecution and imprisonment, additional income tax and jobs. Nevada reports that 40,000 jobs can be supported by the industry in their state.
The downside of just legalising and regulating cannabis and not all drugs is that the Mexican cartels are attempting to replace their lost income with increased poppy production for heroin and I guess if we regulated everything, criminals would still be criminals and would move into something else when their money dried up. But drug money is huge and I feel it's better spent on supporting our society rather than undermining it.

Just read a (reputable) survey that shows that whilst only a third of Brits admit to having taken illegal drugs, 52% are in favour of legalising cannabis providing the controls used in America are applied.

okocha wrote:My nephew tried cannabis just once and developed schizophrenia from that experimentation.  Legalising it makes people believe it's ok to dabble with, as Richard did. A family's lives ruined.

  if you have a predisposition to psychosis, cannabis can trigger this devastating condition. Not sure how you think "control" via legalisation can cure casual use of this type. Obviously schools' PSHE lessons should include discussion and information on the dangers of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of all sorts. All have equal priority.

Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier. If anything legalising would make it more difficult as retailers could set age restrictions.

One of the most dangerous aspects of modern day weed is the chemicals it’s sprayed with to speed up growth and increase yield which make it the more potent ‘skunk’ which is so prevelabt now. Untreated hash or weed is far safer according to all the studies.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier.

I've never seen a drug in my life. I can't believe it's that easy.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Beyond the points made above, picking up canabis at the moment could not be easier.

I've never seen a drug in my life. I can't believe it's that easy.

He will give you a spliff if you ask nicely.

This topic always gets me mad.

Ive not smoked weed now for over 9 years (could be over 10 or 11 but i know for a fact i havent done it since my lad was born) but i did smoke it and i smoked quite a bit of it.

I never got into any fights when i smoked weed.

I never had a hangover.

I was never addicted.

I never tried any other drugs

It did far less damage to me than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes would of done. 

It costs the NHS proportionally a lot less to treat anything to do with cannabis compared to alcohol. (Fighting, poisoning, slips, trips and falls etc)

Alcohol can kill

Smoking can kill

Marijuana doesn't

It is proven to treat various ailments and illnesses with great results used in the right way.  

Recreationally, i would much rather be able to go to a cafe for a spliff with people than a pub for a drink.