h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I better not quote Bill Hicks then.

Indeed.

In fact I was half tempted to make my self a nuisance by oding just that.

But whilst I feel the mods are quite wrong, I do understand that this sort of thing is always going to be a touchy subject for an organisation such as the BBC.

I just think it is a pity that in 21C Britain we still cannot have a grown up discussion about drugs because we all have to pretend that nothing but evil comes from them and all drug users are evil granny muggin criminals....

We can... just not here. Which is ironic considering some of the very worthwhile discussions that are broadcast by the BBC on radio and television. I wish there was a watershed on h2g2.

It's probably best not to do it while a BBC employee is in the conversation as well - I didn't see your first post though - that wasn't me.

And now the first post has disappeared!

This I don't understand as I was explicitly saying that in my opinion cocaine is not a good thing.

Don't say the "c" word.

I am a bit annoyed that my post 35 has been hidden, even though I flippantly commented that it probably would be .

This seems absolutly stupid to me, that we have to live in a fantasy world where there is no upside to doing drugs at all and everything about it is negative.

THis is patently foolish and I am sure that not even an employee of "Editoral Policy" could possibly defend it.

Even the *GOVERNMENT* in their "Talk to Frank" advertising campaign showed *before the watershed* acknowledge that there is an upside to doing drugs with their campaing that said:-

"If this was the only consequence of oding drugs we would all be doing it"

So the BBC need to maintain higher standards of enforcing no sensible discussion of the drugs issue than even the Gov?!?!?!?!?

Mina does that mean that part of your job is to yikse anything you consider *might* be objectionable even if it doesn't offend you at all?

Ferrettbadger notes that it is 2006 not 1956.

x10

No, any time I complain something's offended me on h2g2, it's not upheld usually!

Just out of interest to see if it gets yiksed the following:-

It is my opinion that the following things are true.

1) People take drugs.

2) Some people who take drugs are messed up and it causes them probelms.

3) Some people (including me) have taken drugs and enjoyed it and felt it was "a laugh".

4) Some people who take drugs turn out to be very bad criminals.

5) Most people who take recreational drugs *dont* and aside from their drug taking are productive and law abiding citizens.

None of these obsevations in anyway encourage drug use and clearly it is *not* the position of the BBC to do this, these are my obsevations of the world and I would be very intersted to see how they could be proven wrong.

FB

And there goes post 39 too

I'm just lurking.

Well you've been spotted now

Obviously you haven't taken the course on "How Not to be Seen".

<> (FB)

Well, except that these 'recreational drugs' are still illegal. So, although I might not agree personally about your posts being removed, I can understand the BBC's stance about not wanting anything written on their message boards that might appear to be 'promoting' illegal activities.

Meanwhile, a BBC policy I really don't get is not being able to use swear words on h2g2. Okay, I can understand it if someone is being obusive and swearing at another researcher (which is another House Rule entirely), but what teenager - presumably those being 'protected' here - has not heard and used these words?


az

Of course Az my point is that the vast majority of these people are otherwise law abiding citizens.

Point five was refering explicitly to point four. Perhaps my wording was a little wooly

Not wooly at all, FB. I quite agree with you. Though I tend to only use 'legal' drugs like and cigs, I also know people who use illegal drugs in a manner that doesn't upset their lives or personal health.

I actually think some of these now illegal 'recreational' drugs should be made as legal as booze and tobacco are. At least then you'd know what you are getting, you wouldn't have to buy stuff from the 'criminal element' who could be selling you anything at all.

I wouldn't personally be interested in them myself. Was it GD or BH who said he needed stuff to slow him down, not speed him up? Well, I'm quite like that too. So does the job for me. I can't even smoke pot - am quite *paranoid* already without any extra help, thanks.

But I reckon going over to the 'drug off-licence' to get a hit of smack or a bag of coke that had a government controlled 'quality' thing happening - would this be a bad thing? You might have to pay a bit more, but it's like how you know a bottle of wine has a 12% alcohol content and a bottle of whisky has 40%. It helps you make personal choices. At least, that's how I see it.

As long as 'recreational drugs' remain illegal they will be controlled by criminals who only want to make a fast buck. They will cut the stuff with any sort of cr@p, they only want to sell the stuff.

az

Fair one. One of the reasons I am an "ex" user.

My main point is that we live in a country (well most of us sorry az) where something like 15 million people *admit* to smoking dope semi regularly. Yet we have to pretend it is somethng no one does and if they doe they are granny mugging maniacs.

I think it makes it very hard to sesible talk about the issue *or* formulate sensible public policy on the issue.

Well, if we are going to get into a discussion about it I'd like to give my opinion as to why I find it very unlikely that any recreational drugs will be legalised (especially here in the states). There is too much money in keeping it illegal. The "war" on drugs that started in the Reagan administration (btw, how's that war going?) earmarked a significant fraction of the US budget to fight the drug trade here and abroad. When considering the vast machine that is involved in this "war" and how many people are employed fighting it my mind boggles. From the people directly employed by the DEA to the people less directly involved like say the airplane maintenance crews that service the defoliation planes in South and Central America to the technological companies that are steadily at work designing more sensitive equipment to detect drugs or more creative "less lethal" weapons to detain drug crazed maniacs. Now add to that the shear amount of international commerce that the drug trade does and how it effects the world economy. If the drug trade were halted many more countries would be rapidly plunged into even further abject poverty.

My own personal knee-jerk response is the best way to win the war on drugs is to make them legal and less profitable. But the realist in me knows that this is unlikely to happen and to be honest, it would probably be pretty ugly if it did.