Cokehead Kate

It would be politically incorrect to destroy the poppy fields and deny those poor Afghan "farmers" their meagre living.

As for Kate, her contracts are now toppling like dominos. We can't and shouldn't lock folks up for abuse of drugs - only possession with intent to supply. Locking her up would make her a martyr to the chav world of teenage drug users. Allowing her to decline gradually as her source of wealth is cut will send out the right messages - the authorities didn't get involved and yet she still fucked up big time.

Deterrence through incerceration would be irrelevant here as it was her celebrity status in itself that caught her out.

I can't believe how intolerant some of you muppets are!

Steve, she has lost one contract with a shite clothing chain who say they cannot associate with drugs. I doubt they will ever be able to have a model sign up again, unless they simply mean people that get caught. Her other contracts within the business are rallying.

Its cocaine. I have never seen it or taken it, but some of you need to get educated on this subject.

You have to pity her, I doubt very much she is in a happy place, sticking her in prison is unlikely to help her or her kid, this no doubt goes for the millions of people who are not kate moss.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Its cocaine. I have never seen it or taken it,

I doubt there is a single tabloid journalist in the UK who could (truthfully) make a similar claim.

Oh how we love to discover people in the limelight (of whom jealousy is rife) have feet of clay.

Of course, if we actually could lock people up who have admitted to taking cocaine we could perhaps throw away the key with George W Bush and Liam Gallagher, so not all bad...

Angus Deayton is far better in "Nighty Night" than he ever was in anything else, so getting caught with flowers in the attic is not altogether a bad thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
Mick,


The only country that's made significant headway against drug problems by criminalisation did so by cutting off people's hands and worse. Tam

Strewth, don't give him any ideas. He's still got the vote you know. You have to be a "certified" lunatic before they take that away.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
We and Uncle Sam are heavily booted in Afghanistan, whence 90% of heroin in the UK is said to originate. So why the flick don't our boys simply destroy every single poppy field?

I suspect because we don't have that big a presence there (most of our troops seem to be occupied elsewhere in the region). We've never had that strong a presence outside the kabul and I suspect that if we went round torching crops it would be about as sensible as poking a hornets' nest.

Not to mention the fact that, the law of supply and demand being what it is, if these drugs didn't get grown there, they'd get grown somewhere else.

My argument has nothing to do with 'political correctness', it's that, much like prohibition, making drugs illegal simply hasn't been a successful, or effective strategy (unless you have some evidence to the contrary).


regards,

Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:

Not to mention the fact that, the law of supply and demand being what it is, if these drugs didn't get grown there, they'd get grown somewhere else.

Reducing supply without reducing demand simply raises prices. So then you've got heroin addicts needing to find larger sums of money on a daily basis.

quote:

I think a hefty fine would suffice; snorting a stimulant is hardly the crime of the century is it? Anyway, with the loss of all those contracts she's been fined already, so there it is. Tell her not to do it again and get something proper to eat!!!

Perhaps not to Miss Moss, who has the finances to pay for it. Other users don't have the money, so they steal etc, and this is responsible ofr over &5% of all crime in the Uk (Illicit drug use).

Its also true that locking up may not be the total answer, either...

The life of a drug addict is miserable - no matter how much money they have.

Hard drugs are a genocide happening right next door or just down the road. But the problem is not a simple one and the solution is not simple.

Doing a few lines now and again does not make you an addict, any more than having a few beers makes you an alcholic.

Legalise all of it; sell at reasonable cost (and taxed) at known and stated purity in licensed premises.

Most people will use it responsibly, some will not. But at least those who abuse it will not be in thrall to some profiteering dealer or have to mug old ladies.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Doing a few lines now and again does not make you an addict, any more than having a few beers makes you an alcholic.

Legalise all of it; sell at reasonable cost (and taxed) at known and stated purity in licensed premises.

Most people will use it responsibly, some will not. But at least those who abuse it will not be in thrall to some profiteering dealer or have to mug old ladies.

The unstated premise in your argument, and the one that is quite flawed, is that satiety is achievable with drugs of addiction. Physical tolerance allows people to escalate their dosage to levels toxic to non-using individuals.

Make drugs more accessible and cheaper and people will take more; in turn exposing them to the dependence liability common to all hard drugs and cancelling out the benefits of making the drugs cheaper.

Accessibility and demand - it has not occurred with Tobacco and Alcohol.

The advantage of a legalised controlled system is that there would be no dealers attempting to recruit more users.

Addicted users could seek help or be directed to support centres without the fear of prosecution or persecution.

I think getting out of one's tree is a basic human right. Throughout the ages, man has sought to reduce his level of conscousness through drug use of one sort or another; it's just a facet of the tragic human condition. Provoided one doesn't drink and drive, for example, what the hell? One's body is one's own temple to do with as one bloody well pleases.

I say again, snorting cocaine up one's snout - though of questionable medical provenance - is hardly the crime of the century.

EW

I don't much like couscous either.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Accessibility and demand - it has not occurred with Tobacco and Alcohol.

You have got to be joking! I must misunderstand you. It seems that you are saying that the consumption of alcohol is no more prevalent than hard drug use even though it is more accessible.

quote:

I say again, snorting cocaine up one's snout - though of questionable medical provenance - is hardly the crime of the century.

I agree with the first part but feel that it is up to the police to look deeper into this matter to see if indeed a crime has been committed and to then decide what should be done about it. Some people may well have the opinion that the actions attributed to Kate should not be thought of as a crime but unless the law can be changed a crime they appear to be. To travel the road of one law for the rich, one law for the poor and one law for coke heads would in my view be wrong.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by graham55:
We and Uncle Sam are heavily booted in Afghanistan, whence 90% of heroin in the UK is said to originate. So why the flick don't our boys simply destroy every single poppy field?
___________________________________________________

Illicit drugs, in addition to oil, arms and coffee, are the most lucrative commodities in the world. The fact that they are illegal does not mean that they are in any other way different from the other commodities mentioned. A global industry requires an infrastructure i.e. investment capital, workforce, distribution networks etc... In short, a global industry could not possibly operate without a greater or lesser degree of official complicity. This does not simply equate to third-world poverty and corruption. Recall the antics of Ollie North and Manuel Noriega.
A top four global industry means that very powerful persons/ bodies have an interest in maintaining such an industry at every level. I remember reading that if the U.S. government were to seriously eradicate the supply of cocaine into America, this would have significant implications for the California banking system.
Try Alfred. W. McCoy's 'The Politics Of Heroin: CIA Complicity In The Global Drug Trade' (Lawrence Hill Books, 1991)

Deane - What am saying that the availability of a legally available drug does not cause every man and his wife to get ratted all the time or even any of the time.

A given percentage of the population do abuse legally available drugs, but they are not prosecuted and can get assistance if they wish and when they are ready to receive assistance. Legal drug users are not recruited by dealers and forced by the law to consume in places hidden away from any support.

I guess you assume that the population in general cannot exercise restraint.

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:

Look at those legs

Sorry guys - if the stuff was legalised, manufactured in controlled environments, and monitored, we'd solve all the trafficking problems, be able to track who's abusing the stuff, and be able to tax it to boot. PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK no matter how many busloads of innocent people get blown up by drug barons, or how many people get banged up in prison.

I've seen coke and most of everything else (barring heroin and crack) whilst in the London club circuit (**note: that doesn't mean I've done it!**), and whilst I don't condone it, people WILL do it. Liam Gallagher was right - "Doing drugs is like having a cup of tea" - MILLIONS do pills, powders and needles every day - Kate's only in the papers because she's famous.

...plus, as others have said here - she's a clothes horse, not a bloody role model. If you choose to look up to her and not make up your OWN mind about what's right or wrong, well, you'd have to be pretty vacuous and moronic yourself.

Besides, how many of these twats in media are slagging her off with one hand while chopping up lines with the other - it takes the piss.

Of course - if she chooses to do this stuff while her daughter's in her care (as opposed to her nanny's), well, that's pretty damn low.

quote:

Originally posted by Bananahead:
I would like to see the photographer banged up for invasion of Privacy.

She should be allowed to do whatever she chooses in her free time.

Nigel

And continue supplying crime syndicates with business in her free time?

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

And continue supplying crime syndicates with business in her free time?

Andrew

Like every kid who buys a pirate DVD does?

I think this woman clearly has an addiction problem and warrants compassion, but no more or less than any other sick person. Our prisons are already full of addicts and alcoholics because they get desperate enough to take the risks that get them caught. The criminals driven by loot alone can afford to take fewer risks.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I think getting out of one's tree is a basic human right. Throughout the ages, man has sought to reduce his level of conscousness through drug use of one sort or another; it's just a facet of the tragic human condition. Provoided one doesn't drink and drive, for example, what the hell? One's body is one's own temple to do with as one bloody well pleases.

I say again, snorting cocaine up one's snout - though of questionable medical provenance - is hardly the crime of the century.

EW

Again it's funding crime syndicates. Better that people get educated and put their money to some positive use like helping AIDS orphans in Africa, rather than shoving it up their selfish noses.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

And continue supplying crime syndicates with business in her free time?

Andrew

Like every kid who buys a pirate DVD does?

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:

Not to mention the fact that, the law of supply and demand being what it is, if these drugs didn't get grown there, they'd get grown somewhere else.

Reducing supply without reducing demand simply raises prices. So then you've got heroin addicts needing to find larger sums of money on a daily basis.

deane

Your attitude is common to those who become hysterical at the very thought of people taking "drugs". The belief that all self control will be lost and the whole world will descend into some drug fuelled lethargy.

Conveniently overlooking the fact that alcohol is itself a very addictive substance which vast numbers of people use sensibly and in moderation.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I think getting out of one's tree is a basic human right. Throughout the ages, man has sought to reduce his level of conscousness through drug use of one sort or another; it's just a facet of the tragic human condition. Provoided one doesn't drink and drive, for example, what the hell? One's body is one's own temple to do with as one bloody well pleases.

I say again, snorting cocaine up one's snout - though of questionable medical provenance - is hardly the crime of the century.

EW

Again it's funding crime syndicates. Better that people get educated and put their money to some positive use like helping AIDS orphans in Africa, rather than shoving it up their selfish noses.

Andrew

If it were legal, those crime syndicates would have no market.

quote:

Of course - if she chooses to do this stuff while her daughter's in her care (as opposed to her nanny's), well, that's pretty damn low

Believe it or not I was once on the 92 bus from Manchester to Hazel Grove and the 'lady' on the next seat sent her approx. 8 and 5 yr old kids down to the lower deck of the bus before smoking heroin off a piece of foil right next to us. She then proceeded to inform anyone who wasn't pretending to stare blankly out of the window that she was a good mother and would never do it in front of the kids!!!

I had to pass the poor buggers to get off (they were still downstairs) and I honestly felt like taking them with me to the nearest Police station.

A bit of an aside but.....

Jonathan