Why The War On Drugs Could About To Reach A Turning Point But Britain Lags Behind

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:10 am

We’ve barely had time for introductions, but already Johann Hari is reeling off tips about Britain’s war on drugs for me to investigate. Do I want to speak to a new group of ex-policemen and enforcement officials who want reform drug laws? Did I know Britain’s criminal justice system has a worse racial disparity problem than America? “The only country that gathers statistics that has a worse racial disparity than the US in the developed world is Britain, which is extraordinary,” he says. Vice News recently reported that black people, 3% of Britain’s population, accounted for 20% of all Class A drug supply convictions. Hari cites a 1993 study in the US that suggested 19% of drug dealers in there were African American, but accounted for 64% of arrests for it. Research from 2010 found there was a greater racial disparity in enforcement and imprisonment of drug offences in England and Wales than the US. The 2014 Young Review, which looked into improving how our criminal justice system treats young black and Muslim men, noted that Britain imprisons black people more disproportionately than America.

Meeting me in the lobby of the British Library, Hari, 37, is so energised about discussing the topic, he keeps talking at the same pace when we interrupt the interview to re-locate indoors when it begins raining. He distils the racial disparity into one comparison: “Zac Goldsmith was expelled from Eton for having cannabis. If he was a kid at a comp in Brixton, he would’ve got a criminal record, he would’ve been denied access to loads of employment opportunities. His life would’ve been really seriously marred. He didn’t because he’s white and he’s from a rich family,” he says. “If Sadiq Khan, son of a bus driver on a council estate, had been caught with the same cannabis, he would’ve got a criminal record. The figures on that are really clear.” Hari has spent more time thinking about the drug war than most Britons. After a fallfrom grace as one of Britain’s star columnists over plagiarism and using different guises to defame other journalists online, he left the Independent and spent three years researching and writing ‘Chasing The Scream’, the story of how the war on drugs began and why it must end. The work has drawn praise from experts and campaigners. Hari published the audio of interviews he conducted online and promoted a way for readers to submit corrections to the book. In the words of one critic’s glowing review of the book: “This is a man with something to prove.”

The book argues that drug prohibition has given a huge market to armed criminal gangs, and that nearly all violence defined as “drug related” is warring over turf. In other words, drugs are not as deadly as the industry created by banning them. Using personal stories, the book illuminates the human origins and cost of a war the world is increasingly reluctant to fight. Portugal decriminalised the use of all drugs in 2001. Switzerland has set up legal heroin clinics for addicts. Uruguay legalised marijuana. On Monday, the UN General Assembly Special Advisory Session On Drugs (UNGASS) begins in New York. Hari wryly notes that the slogan for the last special session in 1998 was “a drug free world, we can do it!” That pledged to end drugs, all of them, by 2008. “People looking around will notice whether drugs have in fact vanished from the face of the earth,” he laughs. The UNGASS is convening two years earlier than planned after the governments of Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia have called for it, because, in Hari’s words, they have been “fucking destroyed” by the violence of the drug war.

“By some estimates, more people have died in the drug war violence in Mexico and Colombia than died in Syria,” he says. Countries keen on prohibition, like Russia and China, are bound to oppose any change. “This is the first time we’re going to have countries standing up saying ‘we are not doing this shit any more’,” Hari says. “The failure of the drug war has become more obvious, the alternatives have been tried.” Hari doubts those clamouring for change will get what they want: change to UN treaties permitting countries to experiment with policies of treatment rather than enforcement, and a panel of experts to spend two years looking at what policies work best. If prohibitionist countries resist the second one, they will be “exposed naked in front of the world for having to admit they do not want the look at evidence,” Hari says. He does not know which way Britain will go during the session. What he saw in 2012 does not inspire confidence. At the World Federation Against Drugs conference in Stockholm, draconian Russian drugs tsar Viktor Ivanov, whom Hari calls “one of the most evil people I’ve ever met”, made a statement condemning those who would relax drug prohibition. “Britain’s representative stood right there next to him, with this declaration saying the war on drugs has been a great thing and we need to intensify it. That was shocking to me, that they could stand next to a man who is causing enormous amounts of deaths in his own country.”

The fact David Cameron’s government has been “all over the place” on drug reform makes him suspect the UK will “keep its head down” at the summit. He calls the prime minister a “particularly grotesque example” of British politicians’ inaction on the issue. The prime minister spoke in favour of “radical options” of reform as a backbencher, shortly after his election to parliament, noting the surge in heroin addiction prohibition had created. In 2012, he rejected the idea of a Royal Commission on drugs, saying his government’s policies were working. For Hari, the evidence is so conclusive he struggles to think Cameron genuinely believes that. “I don’t think anyone could say I’m someone who has positive illusions about Cameron and Osborne but I can’t believe they don’t know, or if you sat with them privately, they couldn’t intellectually make the case for ending the prohibition. There’s no political capital in it and they don’t give a shit basically,” he says.

“Politicians are always calculating: ‘If I do this, how much shit will I get and how much praise will I get’. At the moment, on this issue, you’ll get some praise and a lot of shit. It’s our job to change that ratio.” This could be harder in Britain than in America. Here there is not an activist grass roots movement for change like the one that has fought for US states like Colorado and Oregon to relax drug laws. In America, the Right has a strong libertarian streak. After years of advocating left-wing causes, Hari did not expect to hear Rand Paul, Republican presidential candidate, praise his book. Here, the Right has “more of a Culture War distaste for drug use,” Hari says.
“Alan Duncan used to say fairly good things, Nigel Farage used to say fairly good things,” he notes, trying to remember the few who have spoken about it. “It’s the one thing I’d praise Nigel Farage for. He used to be really good. He doesn’t talk about it anymore ... There must be British right-wingers who are good on this issue and I’d urge them to speak out. If you’re against failed government policy, and a waste of tax payer money, well it’s hard to think of more blatant item on the menu than the British drug war.”

Discussing the race disparity in its enforcement, he says: “That should be a national scandal, I’m curious why more isn’t said about it?” Hari, who used to conduct sit-down interviews with world-famous authors and public figures, suddenly asks me: “Why do you think it isn’t?” Well, I begin, having not written a book on the issue, maybe we feel race issues are more of an American thing. Maybe racism is something we’re quicker to dismiss because we think ourselves better than other countries at overcoming it. “I think there’s something in that,” he says. “This could be wrong and I say this very tentatively. It’s certainly not the main reason.” He pauses with the most trepidation of any point in the interview and then begins his point. “The people who speak out rightly and bravely on behalf of black British people being abused, some of them worry that it reinforces a negative stereotype about young black men being arrested for drug offences. They’re worried it triggers a debate where people will say, ‘well, they are dealers’. What we know from the American debate, what gets classed as a drug dealer is heavily radicalised.” Two of Hari’s nephews attend a Jewish School in London where those selling drugs are “Nice North London Jewish boys”. If they are caught, the school will ring the parents, not the police, he says, so they stay out of police statistics.

“You end up with this distorted picture that drug dealers are black which is false ... The kid who offers my nephew weed or some pills, he doesn’t appear in the picture ... You can’t punish everyone so the law is enforced people the police already harass, already stigmatise, already fear, the low-hanging fruit.” He cites the story of American cop Matthew Fogg, who asked his superiors why they always mounted drug raids in black neighbourhoods and was told it was easier to target people “who can’t afford attorneys”.
Hari says the three changes he wants Britain to implement have already been tried elsewhere and worked:

-Decriminalise all use of drugs, following Portugal’s example
-Legalise heroin for those addicted to it, following Switzerland’s example
-Allow legal cannabis-selling co-operatives, following Spain’s example

“Legal heroin clinics in Geneva look like a branch of Toni & Guy. No one ever dies there. Everyone leaves and gets a job,” he says. He adds what he calls his “Jerry Springer moment”. “Policies based on shaming stigmatisation have been tried and failed. Policies based on love and compassion and reconnection have also been tried. Everywhere that’s tried them has a drug problem that’s diminishing all the time. That has to tell us something.” Some change has come. Hari concedes more change will take “political capital” to overcome failed orthodoxies about what works, adding: “Who wants to spend it on this?” The world’s most populous country still enthusiastically puts people to death for drugs offences. Whether reformists get what they want at this week’s UN session, it will mark a point beyond which “no one can ever say ‘the world is united behind this goal of a drug-free world’.” he says. In words that suggest there’s optimism for the cause of drug reform in Britain, he says: “It becomes part of a much deeper momentum, with the rebellions happening all over the world... Knowing you are part of global movement really empowers you.”

Chasing The Scream, published by Bloomsbury, is out now in paperback.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/drugs-uk-johann-hari-interview_uk_5710a266e4b0636a3f6c75ab?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:28 am

Very interesting. It's also been found that in the U.S., equal percentages of all ethnic groups are likely to be drug users, and that the disparity in conviction rates is due to whites getting lighter punishments while minorities get heavier ones, and that some minority groups don't take the measures that white users take to conceal their drug use.

I think all arguments for continuing the various wars on drugs should begin with a satisfactory answer to this simple question: What gives any person or group the right to tell you what chemicals you are allowed to consume and which ones you are not allowed to?

And if we want a magic bullet to effectively address high rates of drug use -- along with infant mortality, mental illness, prison overcrowding, obesity and a host of other societal ills -- here it is:

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/24/income-inequality-is-bad-for-society/

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:58 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Very interesting. It's also been found that in the U.S., equal percentages of all ethnic groups are likely to be drug users, and that the disparity in conviction rates is due to whites getting lighter punishments while minorities get heavier ones, and that some minority groups don't take the measures that white users take to conceal their drug use.

I think all arguments for continuing the various wars on drugs should begin with a satisfactory answer to this simple question: What gives any person or group the right to tell you what chemicals you are allowed to consume and which ones you are not allowed to?

And if we want a magic bullet to effectively address high rates of drug use -- along with infant mortality, mental illness, prison overcrowding, obesity and a host of other societal ills -- here it is:

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/24/income-inequality-is-bad-for-society/

You mean give people more money so they can spend more money on drugs? If they can spare money for illegal drugs, they're not poor anyway.

by nicko Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:29 am

Ben, if they can't get money legally for drug use, they will rob you or burgle your house-------fact!

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Very interesting. It's also been found that in the U.S., equal percentages of all ethnic groups are likely to be drug users, and that the disparity in conviction rates is due to whites getting lighter punishments while minorities get heavier ones, and that some minority groups don't take the measures that white users take to conceal their drug use.

I think all arguments for continuing the various wars on drugs should begin with a satisfactory answer to this simple question: What gives any person or group the right to tell you what chemicals you are allowed to consume and which ones you are not allowed to?

And if we want a magic bullet to effectively address high rates of drug use -- along with infant mortality, mental illness, prison overcrowding, obesity and a host of other societal ills -- here it is:

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/24/income-inequality-is-bad-for-society/

It is interesting Ben

The war on drugs, has to be the biggest failure in history based on objectives, suffering and the criminality arisen out of such daft and absurd policies. I mean you have the perfect example of Prohibition to show why such a policy is a disaster

I see people also make absurd claims over drug use as well around money, failing to understand a single point made on the theory around addiction.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:01 pm

A big study on drug use in the U.S. found that most drug users have jobs -- drugs aren't cheap and crime really doesn't pay, at least not very well.

Raggs seems to assume that drug use is more prevalent among the poor; that's not so. Findings show that drug use increases in every socioeconomic level when societies have more income inequality.

Inequality isn't just bad for the poor -- it's bad for everyone who has to live with it. Unless you think a rich person can live in a highly secured fortress, leading a life in which they constantly must take great pains to avoid interacting with their impoverished fellow citizens, without that affecting them in any way.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:14 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:A big study on drug use in the U.S. found that most drug users have jobs -- drugs aren't cheap and crime really doesn't pay, at least not very well.

Raggs seems to assume that drug use is more prevalent among the poor; that's not so. Findings show that drug use increases in every socioeconomic level when societies have more income inequality.

Inequality isn't just bad for the poor -- it's bad for everyone who has to live with it. Unless you think a rich person can live in a highly secured fortress, leading a life in which they constantly must take great pains to avoid interacting with their impoverished fellow citizens, without that affecting them in any way.

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:A big study on drug use in the U.S. found that most drug users have jobs -- drugs aren't cheap and crime really doesn't pay, at least not very well.

Raggs seems to assume that drug use is more prevalent among the poor; that's not so. Findings show that drug use increases in every socioeconomic level when societies have more income inequality.

Inequality isn't just bad for the poor -- it's bad for everyone who has to live with it. Unless you think a rich person can live in a highly secured fortress, leading a life in which they constantly must take great pains to avoid interacting with their impoverished fellow citizens, without that affecting them in any way.

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

The problem is people thinking they can say whether people should take drugs or not.
Its the religiously philosophy that runs through your veins, that seeks to impose your views, rather that allow people to decide for themselves how they live their lives. Many rich people do participate in drugs and so what, but the problems are more of an issue around poverty levels. So the problem is not drugs per say, but the inequality of wealth

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:A big study on drug use in the U.S. found that most drug users have jobs -- drugs aren't cheap and crime really doesn't pay, at least not very well.

Raggs seems to assume that drug use is more prevalent among the poor; that's not so. Findings show that drug use increases in every socioeconomic level when societies have more income inequality.

Inequality isn't just bad for the poor -- it's bad for everyone who has to live with it. Unless you think a rich person can live in a highly secured fortress, leading a life in which they constantly must take great pains to avoid interacting with their impoverished fellow citizens, without that affecting them in any way.

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

Here are a couple of good articles on how guilty and socially isolated the wealthy can feel in unequal societies:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/17/wealth-therapy-tackles-woes-of-the-rich-its-really-isolating-to-have-lots-of-money

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/03/09/dont-envy-the-super-rich-they-are-miserable/

Surrounded by people who are making them feel like they're everything wrong with the country, are you really that surprised that more rich people would turn to drugs?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:26 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

The problem is people thinking they can say whether people should take drugs or not.
Its the religiously philosophy that runs through your veins, that seeks to impose your views, rather that allow people to decide for themselves how they live their lives. Many rich people do participate in drugs and so what, but the problems are more of an issue around poverty levels. So the problem is not drugs per say, but the inequality of wealth

Don't even think about bringing my religion into this.

I asked Ben to explain because I don't really follow his train of thought on this.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

The problem is people thinking they can say whether people should take drugs or not.
Its the religiously philosophy that runs through your veins, that seeks to impose your views, rather that allow people to decide for themselves how they live their lives. Many rich people do participate in drugs and so what, but the problems are more of an issue around poverty levels. So the problem is not drugs per say, but the inequality of wealth

Don't even think about bringing my religion into this.

I asked Ben to explain because I don't really follow his train of thought on this.

Your views are swayed by your philosophy, which is religious and it has need to point this out when you blatantly miss the point of addiction.
You do not get to decide what people challenge you with.
The fact is you already hold a very poor view of people who take drugs, again based on some religiously held moral and ethical stand point.
So as seen it has relevance.
Again I suggest you watch the video, in order that you can then further yourself in this discussion

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:32 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't even think about bringing my religion into this.

I asked Ben to explain because I don't really follow his train of thought on this.

Your views are swayed by your philosophy, which is religious and it has need to point this out when you blatantly miss the point of addiction.
You do not get to decide what people challenge you with.
The fact is you already hold a very poor view of people who take drugs, again based on some religiously held moral and ethical stand point.
So as seen it has relevance.
Again I suggest you watch the video, in order that you can then further yourself in this discussion

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't even think about bringing my religion into this.

I asked Ben to explain because I don't really follow his train of thought on this.

Your views are swayed by your philosophy, which is religious and it has need to point this out when you blatantly miss the point of addiction.
You do not get to decide what people challenge you with.
The fact is you already hold a very poor view of people who take drugs, again based on some religiously held moral and ethical stand point.
So as seen it has relevance.
Again I suggest you watch the video, in order that you can then further yourself in this discussion

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

Sigh ... this was actually shaping up to be an interesting thread, guys.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Your views are swayed by your philosophy, which is religious and it has need to point this out when you blatantly miss the point of addiction.
You do not get to decide what people challenge you with.
The fact is you already hold a very poor view of people who take drugs, again based on some religiously held moral and ethical stand point.
So as seen it has relevance.
Again I suggest you watch the video, in order that you can then further yourself in this discussion

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

Its fails to be harassment, if you engage me in debate, of which you did.
Playing the victim to some imaginary falsified harmed done to you, does not quantify and make you a victim

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

Sigh ... this was actually shaping up to be an interesting thread, guys.

This is what she does, when she does not like counters that render her views poor

Scream she is a victim

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:37 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

Sigh ... this was actually shaping up to be an interesting thread, guys.

Indeed it was. Perhaps you could advise that idiot to stop bringing my religion into everything then. It's not the first, second, or third time he's done it - he does it over and over again.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:37 pm

Where was religion mentioned by me then? Could someone tell me? Could someone also tell me why that idiot keeps on banging on about it when it's not even been mentioned? If you want this thread to be interesting, tell him to pack it in.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sigh ... this was actually shaping up to be an interesting thread, guys.

Indeed it was. Perhaps you could advise that idiot to stop bringing my religion into everything then. It's not the first, second, or third time he's done it - he does it over and over again.

Look stop being an immature child and grow up

If you cannot take views which debate the very fabric of views you hold and then get upset, then that is your problem and not anyone elses.
They are not mean to upset you but challenge you and if you feel they upset you, then there is something very drastically wrong with your insecurity

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:39 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Reported. You will not harass me yet again about my religion.

Its fails to be harassment, if you engage me in debate, of which you did.
Playing the victim to some imaginary falsified harmed done to you, does not quantify and make you a victim

If you keep on and on harassing me and telling me why I have the views I do, and that they're based on religion, I'll report you. You threatened to do this, and you do indeed keep doing it. You were told to stop before. I haven't even given a view yet anyway - I asked Ben a couple of questions.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Where was religion mentioned by me then? Could someone tell me? Could someone also tell me why that idiot keeps on banging on about it when it's not even been mentioned? If you want this thread to be interesting, tell him to pack it in.

Are not many of your views not based on religious doctrine

Yes or No?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:40 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Indeed it was. Perhaps you could advise that idiot to stop bringing my religion into everything then. It's not the first, second, or third time he's done it - he does it over and over again.

Look stop being an immature child and grow up

If you cannot take views which debate the very fabric of views you hold and then get upset, then that is your problem and not anyone elses.
They are not mean to upset you but challenge you and if you feel they upset you, then there is something very drastically wrong with your insecurity

If you want to get personal with me and keep on banging on about my personal faith, I'll get personal back. The choice is yours.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:40 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Where was religion mentioned by me then? Could someone tell me? Could someone also tell me why that idiot keeps on banging on about it when it's not even been mentioned? If you want this thread to be interesting, tell him to pack it in.

Are not many of your views not based on religious doctrine

Yes or No?

No. Is that an end to it or are you going to harass me further?

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Its fails to be harassment, if you engage me in debate, of which you did.
Playing the victim to some imaginary falsified harmed done to you, does not quantify and make you a victim

If you keep on and on harassing me and telling me why I have the views I do, and that they're based on religion, I'll report you. You threatened to do this, and you do indeed keep doing it. You were told to stop before. I haven't even given a view yet anyway - I asked Ben a couple of questions.

Again to educate the simpleminded
Its not harassment if you engage me in debate, as you are doing now and whilst you are also demonstrating how to have a tantrum
You can if you wish to, continue to piss off the admin, by making falsified reports, born from your insecurities
That is your failing, not mine

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:42 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If you keep on and on harassing me and telling me why I have the views I do, and that they're based on religion, I'll report you. You threatened to do this, and you do indeed keep doing it. You were told to stop before. I haven't even given a view yet anyway - I asked Ben a couple of questions.

Again to educate the simpleminded
Its not harassment if you engage me in debate, as you are doing now and whilst you are also demonstrating how to have a tantrum
You can if you wish to, continue to piss off the admin, by making falsified reports, born from your insecurities
That is your failing, not mine

I didn't engage you in debate. I didn't even address you. I addressed Ben, and you immediately started harassing me about my religion yet again.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Are not many of your views not based on religious doctrine

Yes or No?

No. Is that an end to it or are you going to harass me further?

I disagree, as I think your whole philosophy mindset is based on mythical thinking

Again you do not get to decide what is asked, you only get to decide to bow out

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Where was religion mentioned by me then? Could someone tell me? Could someone also tell me why that idiot keeps on banging on about it when it's not even been mentioned? If you want this thread to be interesting, tell him to pack it in.

Can I give you an inspirational image instead?

Why The War On Drugs Could About To Reach A Turning Point But Britain Lags Behind Water-off-a-ducks-back

Why The War On Drugs Could About To Reach A Turning Point But Britain Lags Behind Water-off-a-ducks-back

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:43 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No. Is that an end to it or are you going to harass me further?

I disagree, as I think your whole philosophy mindset is based on mythical thinking

Again you do not get to decide what is asked, you only get to decide to bow out

Are your views based on you being a violent thug?

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Again to educate the simpleminded
Its not harassment if you engage me in debate, as you are doing now and whilst you are also demonstrating how to have a tantrum
You can if you wish to, continue to piss off the admin, by making falsified reports, born from your insecurities
That is your failing, not mine

I didn't engage you in debate. I didn't even address you. I addressed Ben, and you immediately started harassing me about my religion yet again.

You have replied to me many times, if it was harassment, it would be where you did not reply and I get badgering you.
You need to stop inventing a false victim of yourself

Not only is it pathetic, but it shows you have fear, a fear to face challenging views you hold

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:44 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Where was religion mentioned by me then? Could someone tell me? Could someone also tell me why that idiot keeps on banging on about it when it's not even been mentioned? If you want this thread to be interesting, tell him to pack it in.

Can I give you an inspirational image instead?

No. What would be better was if you actually addressed the main problem on this forum, which is Didge and his continued harassment. If you ignore it, I'll respond myself, and then most of the threads will go to shit - because of him.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:45 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't engage you in debate. I didn't even address you. I addressed Ben, and you immediately started harassing me about my religion yet again.

You have replied to me many times, if it was harassment, it would be where you did not reply and I get badgering you.
You need to stop inventing a false victim of yourself

Not only is it pathetic, but it shows you have fear, a fear to face challenging views you hold

Sure I'm replying but I'm not engaging you in debate. I'm asking you to stop harassing me about my religion as it's nothing to do with my posts in this thread, and it's nothing to do with this subject.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

You have replied to me many times, if it was harassment, it would be where you did not reply and I get badgering you.
You need to stop inventing a false victim of yourself

Not only is it pathetic, but it shows you have fear, a fear to face challenging views you hold

Sure I'm replying but I'm not engaging you in debate. I'm asking you to stop harassing me about my religion as it's nothing to do with my posts in this thread, and it's nothing to do with this subject.

Then its not harassment.

I will question you on views if I feel your regressive beliefs play a part in your views on that issue.
If you feel that is too much for you, then you have the option, not to reply and walk away.
The forum is not setup to pander to the insecurities of Rags

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:48 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure I'm replying but I'm not engaging you in debate. I'm asking you to stop harassing me about my religion as it's nothing to do with my posts in this thread, and it's nothing to do with this subject.

Then its not harassment.

I will question you on views if I feel your regressive beliefs play a part in your views on that issue.
If you feel that is too much for you, then you have the option, not to reply and walk away.
The forum is not setup to pander to the insecurities of Rags

It is harassment because of the threats you made before - before you deleted your account several times. Why should I walk away when you started being a prat?

Do you beat people up in order to steal drugs off them? Are you violent because you take drugs? I think that's more relevant to this thread, don't you?

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Then its not harassment.

I will question you on views if I feel your regressive beliefs play a part in your views on that issue.
If you feel that is too much for you, then you have the option, not to reply and walk away.
The forum is not setup to pander to the insecurities of Rags

It is harassment because of the threats you made before - before you deleted your account several times. Why should I walk away when you started being a prat?

Do you beat people up in order to steal drugs off them? Are you violent because you take drugs? I think that's more relevant to this thread, don't you?

Again inventing claims, based off previous views said is redundant, unless you can prove they are directly linked with evidence
The problems stems from yourself, where you are happy to judge and challenge people on their views, but the moment it happens to you, then you claim victim status.
Let me make this as clear as possible.
If you feel a victim due to someone questioning your beliefs on an issue, then you resoundingly lack any form of faith whatsoever
Its getting very tiresome how you try to even manipulate the admin here with shouting victim all the time
Questioning peoples views and beliefs is not a crime in a secular society.
Its only a crime in one born from religion

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:55 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It is harassment because of the threats you made before - before you deleted your account several times. Why should I walk away when you started being a prat?

Do you beat people up in order to steal drugs off them? Are you violent because you take drugs? I think that's more relevant to this thread, don't you?

Again inventing claims, based off previous views said is redundant, unless you can prove they are directly linked with evidence
The problems stems from yourself, where you are happy to judge and challenge people on their views, but the moment it happens to you, then you claim victim status.
Let me make this as clear as possible.
If you feel a victim due to someone questioning your beliefs on an issue, then you resoundingly lack any form of faith whatsoever
Its getting very tiresome how you try to even manipulate the admin here with shouting victim all the time
Questioning peoples views and beliefs is not a crime in a secular society.
Its only a crime in one born from religion

Here are the two posts I made to Ben before you started dragging my religion into it. Perhaps you could explain how your views are directly linked to any evidence that I asked those questions because of my religion. If you can't do that, perhaps you should shut your filthy mouth and get back on topic.

You mean give people more money so they can spend more money on drugs? If they can spare money for illegal drugs, they're not poor anyway.

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Again inventing claims, based off previous views said is redundant, unless you can prove they are directly linked with evidence
The problems stems from yourself, where you are happy to judge and challenge people on their views, but the moment it happens to you, then you claim victim status.
Let me make this as clear as possible.
If you feel a victim due to someone questioning your beliefs on an issue, then you resoundingly lack any form of faith whatsoever
Its getting very tiresome how you try to even manipulate the admin here with shouting victim all the time
Questioning peoples views and beliefs is not a crime in a secular society.
Its only a crime in one born from religion

Here are the two posts I made to Ben before you started dragging my religion into it. Perhaps you could explain how your views are directly linked to any evidence that I asked those questions because of my religion. If you can't do that, perhaps you should shut your filthy mouth and get back on topic.

You mean give people more money so they can spend more money on drugs? If they can spare money for illegal drugs, they're not poor anyway.

I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.

For one you totally disregarded the evidence on addiction and went off poverty
Showing you believe drug addiction is directly linked.
Literal Christian believers of the Evangelical view point of which you are have views fundamentally right wing that are at odds with social issues.
The two are infinitely linked

I am not going to bow down to some mouthy idiot you thinks she can manipulate others.

Best you get used to that

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:01 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I assumed that was what you meant actually as you were talking about income inequality. Are you suggesting that it's rich people who take more drugs because they have more money? It's not very clear how income inequality would encourage someone to take drugs.
Here are a couple of good articles on how guilty and socially isolated the wealthy can feel in unequal societies:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/17/wealth-therapy-tackles-woes-of-the-rich-its-really-isolating-to-have-lots-of-money
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/03/09/dont-envy-the-super-rich-they-are-miserable/
Surrounded by people who are making them feel like they're everything wrong with the country, are you really that surprised that more rich people would turn to drugs?

BACK ON TOPIC ***
Admittedly the 'War On Drugs' and all of our CZARS that were appointed since POTUS Richard Nixon made that feeble attempt {garnered loads of support from hopeful Americans} 'Ahhhhh, our good policies & government intervention will squish that increase in societies problems'; and it was a costly error and became yet another funded monolith that seemed to just keep growing with little to know results!

Here's an interesting article {one o many} that proves we {Americans} have so much to learn from our prior mistakes and better methods for diverting/helping/prevention for drug abuse and medical prescription abuses!

U.S. Looks to Other Nations for Addiction Treatment Ideas: Kerlikowske
/By Join Together Staff
May 23rd, 2012
The United States is looking to other nations for ideas on how to treat addiction as a disease, the U.S. Director of National Drug Control Policy said Tuesday. Gil Kerlikowske, who spoke during a visit to London, said the Obama Administration wants to speak to drug addiction experts in other countries to learn whether elements of their programs could work in the United States, according to Reuters.
Kerlikowske has visited Portugal, Italy, Mexico, Colombia and other South American countries to see different types of drug treatment programs, the article notes. He said the approach to drug addiction in Portugal was somewhat successful. Since 2001, authorities in that country have focused their efforts on prevention messages and treatment, and stopped arrests, trials and imprisonment of people who carry a personal supply of drugs.
He said the U.S. is taking a more balanced approach to substance use, with an emphasis on treatment instead of law enforcement. He urged the international community to work together on substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, to stop the cycle of drug use, criminal acts, imprisonment, release, and re-arrest.
Last week, the Office of National Drug Control Policy released a report that it said showed the importance of addressing the nation’s drug problem not just as a criminal justice issue, but as a public health issue.
The report showed a decline in cocaine use since 2003, which indicates that law enforcement efforts and public education campaigns may be having an effect. Illegal drug use overall has decreased about 30 percent since 1979.
An average of 71 percent of men arrested in 10 U.S. metropolitan areas in 2011 tested positive for an illegal substance when they were taken into custody, the study found. The rates ranged from 64 percent in Atlanta, to 81 percent in Sacramento, California. These rates were higher for almost half of the collection sites since 2007.
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/u-s-looks-to-other-nations-for-addiction-treatment-ideas-kerlikowske/

Regardless of what & how England looks for resolutions & solutions to their programs --- 'declaring a WAR ON DRUGS' is just another catch phrase that makes society feel better but serves NO ACTUAL PURPOSE! Rolling Eyes

Golly, Raggs...just put his huge ego busting ass on IGNORE; he's just using you to vent his spleen since so many members are ignoring his preaching/egotistical ass! Suspect

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:02 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Here are the two posts I made to Ben before you started dragging my religion into it. Perhaps you could explain how your views are directly linked to any evidence that I asked those questions because of my religion. If you can't do that, perhaps you should shut your filthy mouth and get back on topic.

For one you totally disregarded the evidence on addiction and went off poverty
Showing you believe drug addiction is directly linked.
Literal Christian believers of the Evangelical view point of which you are have views fundamentally right wing that are at odds with social issues.
The two are infinitely linked

I am not going to bow down to some mouthy idiot you thinks she can manipulate others.

Best you get used to that

What does asking about poverty have to do with religion? I didn't even mention addiction, so you're talking shite as usual.

Answer the question or stop harassing me. I'm not going to bow down to a mentally deficient thug like you who thinks he can say and do what he likes with impunity. It's best you get used to the idea that you don't get to do that.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

For one you totally disregarded the evidence on addiction and went off poverty
Showing you believe drug addiction is directly linked.
Literal Christian believers of the Evangelical view point of which you are have views fundamentally right wing that are at odds with social issues.
The two are infinitely linked

I am not going to bow down to some mouthy idiot you thinks she can manipulate others.

Best you get used to that

What does asking about poverty have to do with religion? I didn't even mention addiction, so you're talking shite as usual.

Answer the question or stop harassing me. I'm not going to bow down to a mentally deficient thug like you who thinks he can say and do what he likes with impunity. It's best you get used to the idea that you don't get to do that.

Literal beliefs and political right wing views are infinitely linked again, even more when you ignored the evidence and directed your views based on poverty. You do not have to mention addiction to be making your view based on poverty
Again I am not going to bow bow to some mouth little brat
Best you get that placed into that thick skull of yours

The fact is if you do not like your views and beliefs questions, when you do so in near every single post towards people and groups all the time, it shows emphatically you have to be the biggest hypocrite going.

Here is the finest example as to what is wrong with religion and you are living proof of that.
The over insensitivity of religious people when their world views and beliefs are challenged

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:10 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What does asking about poverty have to do with religion? I didn't even mention addiction, so you're talking shite as usual.

Answer the question or stop harassing me. I'm not going to bow down to a mentally deficient thug like you who thinks he can say and do what he likes with impunity. It's best you get used to the idea that you don't get to do that.

Literal beliefs and political right wing views are infinitely linked again, even more when you ignored the evidence and directed your views based on poverty. You do not have to mention addiction to be making your view based on poverty
Again I am not going to bow bow to some mouth little brat
Best you get that placed into that thick skull of yours

The fact is if you do not like your views and beliefs questions, when you do so in near every single post towards people and groups all the time, it shows emphatically you have to be the biggest hypocrite going.

Here is the finest example as to what is wrong with religion and you are living proof of that.
The over insensitivity of religious people when their world views and beliefs are challenged

Clearly, your views on the merits of drug use are a result of your bitterness with the world. How else can you escape the reality of your situation and your personality defects? It's also clearly connected with your violent and thuggish nature. No wonder people in the real world run away from you as fast as they can.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Literal beliefs and political right wing views are infinitely linked again, even more when you ignored the evidence and directed your views based on poverty. You do not have to mention addiction to be making your view based on poverty
Again I am not going to bow bow to some mouth little brat
Best you get that placed into that thick skull of yours

The fact is if you do not like your views and beliefs questions, when you do so in near every single post towards people and groups all the time, it shows emphatically you have to be the biggest hypocrite going.

Here is the finest example as to what is wrong with religion and you are living proof of that.
The over insensitivity of religious people when their world views and beliefs are challenged

Clearly, your views on the merits of drug use are a result of your bitterness with the world. How else can you escape the reality of your situation and your personality defects? It's also clearly connected with your violent and thuggish nature. No wonder people in the real world run away from you as fast as they can.

lol I am a positive person and look for the best in humanity and not the negative
That is not being bitter, but has hope for humanity to do better.
Violence is a subjective term and sometimes violence is required in order to save the lives of people
If saving lives makes you consider me to be a Thug, then I shall wear that badge with pride.
As to your assumptions and accusation is the real world, all you are again proving is how insecure and over the top sensitive religious people are

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:14 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Clearly, your views on the merits of drug use are a result of your bitterness with the world. How else can you escape the reality of your situation and your personality defects? It's also clearly connected with your violent and thuggish nature. No wonder people in the real world run away from you as fast as they can.

lol I am a positive person and look for the best in humanity and not the negative
That is not being bitter, but has hope for humanity to do better.
Violence is a subjective term and sometimes violence is required in order to save the lives of people
If saving lives makes you consider me to be a Thug, then I shall wear that badge with pride.
As to your assumptions and accusation is the real world, all you are again proving is how insecure and over the top sensitive religious people are

Positive person? You're a violent thug who goes around looking for people to beat up. Are you actually on drugs yourself, or do you just crave them to escape your bitter existence?

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

lol I am a positive person and look for the best in humanity and not the negative
That is not being bitter, but has hope for humanity to do better.
Violence is a subjective term and sometimes violence is required in order to save the lives of people
If saving lives makes you consider me to be a Thug, then I shall wear that badge with pride.
As to your assumptions and accusation is the real world, all you are again proving is how insecure and over the top sensitive religious people are

Positive person? You're a violent thug who goes around looking for people to beat up. Are you actually on drugs yourself, or do you just crave them to escape your bitter existence?

Correction.
I used to enjoy beating up other hooligans at football matches.
As to drugs, again this shows your stance and view on them for you to perceive them in negativity.
I gladly participate and overdose daily in one form of drug.
Its called happiness

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:19 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Positive person? You're a violent thug who goes around looking for people to beat up. Are you actually on drugs yourself, or do you just crave them to escape your bitter existence?

Correction.
I used to enjoy beating up other hooligans at football matches.
As to drugs, again this shows your stance and view on them for you to perceive them in negativity.
I gladly participate and overdose daily in one form of drug.
Its called happiness

You're not happy - your posts on this forum and the fact that you sit up most of the night posting tells me that. I'm sure you said that you enjoy fighting in the street. I suppose you said it via one of your many deleted accounts. Look Didge, you're not a nice person, you're a violent bully and a thug - and it's probably down to the drugs you take. Do make sure you remove them from the house before you get busted ...

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Correction.
I used to enjoy beating up other hooligans at football matches.
As to drugs, again this shows your stance and view on them for you to perceive them in negativity.
I gladly participate and overdose daily in one form of drug.
Its called happiness

You're not happy - your posts on this forum and the fact that you sit up most of the night posting tells me that. I'm sure you said that you enjoy fighting in the street. I suppose you said it via one of your many deleted accounts. Look Didge, you're not a nice person, you're a violent bully and a thug - and it's probably down to the drugs you take. Do make sure you remove them from the house before you get busted ...

Again being the fact you are not even qualified to judge let alone diagnose how a person is, simply is hilarious and showing you at your worst emotive state possible. You are placing what you deem as to be happy again based off your own world view and stance.
Again you prove your stance on drugs and again make accusations you cannot back up
Happiness is a drug, which as seen, you have seldom participated in trying.
If you did, you would find yourself that much more happier with life instead of as you do daily look down on others.
Sadly that aspect again you hold is born from a religious stand point.
Christians are deemed saved and all others damned

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:28 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not happy - your posts on this forum and the fact that you sit up most of the night posting tells me that. I'm sure you said that you enjoy fighting in the street. I suppose you said it via one of your many deleted accounts. Look Didge, you're not a nice person, you're a violent bully and a thug - and it's probably down to the drugs you take. Do make sure you remove them from the house before you get busted ...

Again being the fact you are not even qualified to judge let diagnose how a person is, simply is hilarious and showing you at your worst emotive state possible. You are placing what you deem as to be happy again based off your own world view and stance.
Again you prove your stance on drugs and again make accusations you cannot back up
Happiness is a drug, which as seen, you have seldom participated in trying.
If you did, you would find yourself that much more happier with life instead of as you do daily look down on others.
Sadly that aspect again you hold is born from a religious stand point.
Christians are deemed saved and all others damned

Oh but you think you're qualified to judge others. I mean - claiming that you beat people up in order to save lives has to be the most pathetic thing you've said on here, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so delusional. It must have come from the defect in your brain which is probably caused by some kind of reaction to the drugs you take.

As for happiness, you're the one sitting here night after night ranting and raving about Muslims whilst I'm out enjoying myself.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Again being the fact you are not even qualified to judge let diagnose how a person is, simply is hilarious and showing you at your worst emotive state possible. You are placing what you deem as to be happy again based off your own world view and stance.
Again you prove your stance on drugs and again make accusations you cannot back up
Happiness is a drug, which as seen, you have seldom participated in trying.
If you did, you would find yourself that much more happier with life instead of as you do daily look down on others.
Sadly that aspect again you hold is born from a religious stand point.
Christians are deemed saved and all others damned

Oh but you think you're qualified to judge others. I mean - claiming that you beat people up in order to save lives has to be the most pathetic thing you've said on here, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so delusional. It must have come from the defect in your brain which is probably caused by some kind of reaction to the drugs you take.

As for happiness, you're the one sitting here night after night ranting and raving about Muslims whilst I'm out enjoying myself.

Yes because I do have qualifications Rags, like Psychology
I never claimed I beat up people to save lies, I said violence is used and need to be used to save lives.
Again you make further unqualified accusations based on a state of mental health, which is funny, being again for a religious person who buys into a book claiming a God exists, to call someone else delusional.
Again if it were not for drugs, its very doubtful you and others would then have lived till you were 40. So you make even more your view point so idiotic, as its then based on what drugs you then render as wrong to be used. With your view on taking drugs, means then all those medically taking drugs on a regular bases are to you, to have created a defect within their brain. Again based on no evidence, but sheer stupidity on your part.
I am not even here night and day and for even to make such a claim, would require you yourself to also be here then al the time.
Again you are then even more absurdly claiming this would render a person unhappy, based on the regressive world view point of Rags.
Not that I am here all the time, but that does not make a person unhappy

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:38 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh but you think you're qualified to judge others. I mean - claiming that you beat people up in order to save lives has to be the most pathetic thing you've said on here, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so delusional. It must have come from the defect in your brain which is probably caused by some kind of reaction to the drugs you take.

As for happiness, you're the one sitting here night after night ranting and raving about Muslims whilst I'm out enjoying myself.

Yes because I do have qualifications Rags, like Psychology
I never claimed I beat up people to save lies, I said violence is used and need to be used to save lives.
Again you make further unqualified accusations based on a state of mental health, which is funny, being again for a religious person who buys into a book claiming a God exists, to call someone else delusional.
Again if it were not for drugs, its very doubtful you would then have lived till you were 40. So you make even more your view point so idiotic, as its then based on what drugs you then render as wrong to be used. With your view on taking drugs, means then all those medically taking drugs on a regular bases are to you, to have created a defect within their brain. Again based on no evidence, but sheer stupidity on your part.
I am not even here night and day and for even to make such a claim, would require you yourself to also be here then al the time.
Again you are then even more absurdly claiming this would render a person unhappy, based on the regressive world view point of Rags.
Not that I am here all the time, but that does not make a person unhappy

For goodness sake Didge, sort yourself out. This is no way to carry on all the time - the bitterness is eating you up. Get out more, go and chat to people in the real world, have a laugh. Don't sit here for ever getting more and more bitter about the religion you chose to give up. Having hissy fits at funerals won't help you.

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Yes because I do have qualifications Rags, like Psychology
I never claimed I beat up people to save lies, I said violence is used and need to be used to save lives.
Again you make further unqualified accusations based on a state of mental health, which is funny, being again for a religious person who buys into a book claiming a God exists, to call someone else delusional.
Again if it were not for drugs, its very doubtful you would then have lived till you were 40. So you make even more your view point so idiotic, as its then based on what drugs you then render as wrong to be used. With your view on taking drugs, means then all those medically taking drugs on a regular bases are to you, to have created a defect within their brain. Again based on no evidence, but sheer stupidity on your part.
I am not even here night and day and for even to make such a claim, would require you yourself to also be here then al the time.
Again you are then even more absurdly claiming this would render a person unhappy, based on the regressive world view point of Rags.
Not that I am here all the time, but that does not make a person unhappy

For goodness sake Didge, sort yourself out. This is no way to carry on all the time - the bitterness is eating you up. Get out more, go and chat to people in the real world, have a laugh. Don't sit here for ever getting more and more bitter about the religion you chose to give up. Having hissy fits at funerals won't help you.

Again making an absurd and irrational view point, where again you are basing my happiness to be based off what you think constitutes happiness.
Your first mistake is to think others can make you happy, as happiness is born from within. Its we ourselves and how we feel that matters as all people can is momentarily make others feel good about themselves, as they dint actually solve their problems for them. Advice is always good for people, but they have to take on board that advice, if of course it is important and needed.
Where in your case, the sad reality is you have had a closed mind for years.
So again being that I am very happy, does not actually require doing anything, to have this Rags. Then everything else that further brings more happiness, is then a bonus

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:46 pm

Highest Drug use by Country Statistics

Which country has the most drug addicts?

[th]Country[/th][th]Substance[/th][th]Total Number of Addicts (approx.)[/th][th]Per Capita[/th]

Iran	Heroin	95,000,00	14.32%
United Kingdom	Alcohol	81,3000	13.65%
France	Prescription pills	85,000,0	13.2%
Slovakian	Inhalants	7,000,0	13.01%
Russia	Alcohol	100,000	7.1%
Afghanistan	Heroin	24,3000	6.9%
Canada	Pot	22,3000	6.4%
United States	Prescription pills	192,9000	6.2%
Brazil	Oxi	84,3000	4.29%
Mexico	Meth	14,1000	3.9%

http://www.whichcountry.co/which-country-has-highest-drug-use/
*************************
According to that graph and study it would appear that far from being a 'DRUG' problem in Jolly Ole' England that the number of alcoholics far out numbers those few humans that are getting the media attention Rolling Eyes

And here in the USA, it's long been acknowledged that the abuse of the prescription meds has allowed the MIDDLE & UPPER Classes to become our #1 problem. Why The War On Drugs Could About To Reach A Turning Point But Britain Lags Behind 2190311264

Why The War On Drugs Could About To Reach A Turning Point But Britain Lags Behind 2190311264

by Guest Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:49 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Highest Drug use by Country Statistics

Which country has the most drug addicts?

[th]Country[/th][th]Substance[/th][th]Total Number of Addicts (approx.)[/th][th]Per Capita[/th]
Iran Heroin 95,000,00 14.32%
United Kingdom Alcohol 81,3000 13.65%
France Prescription pills 85,000,0 13.2%
Slovakian Inhalants 7,000,0 13.01%
Russia Alcohol 100,000 7.1%
Afghanistan Heroin 24,3000 6.9%
Canada Pot 22,3000 6.4%
United States Prescription pills 192,9000 6.2%
Brazil Oxi 84,3000 4.29%
Mexico Meth 14,1000 3.9%
http://www.whichcountry.co/which-country-has-highest-drug-use/
*************************
According to that graph and study it would appear that far from being a 'DRUG' problem in Jolly Ole' England that the number of alcoholics far out numbers those few humans that are getting the media attention And here in the USA, it's long been acknowledged that the abuse of the prescription meds has allowed the MIDDLE & UPPER Classes to become our #1 problem.

Interesting, as why is nicotine not including in addictions above?

by Sponsored content