Band Advice drugs.......

Gassage

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

professorben

Gassage said:

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

If I could buy it in Tesco this whole situation goes away. 
Im not a mean drunk, I don't get violent, I get sleepy and perhaps have a slightly over optimistic option of my fretboard skills. 

But as it happens, it is illegal, and instead of buying it in Tesco, you have to make furtive phone calls to dodgy people asking " hey man you got any veg?" Or " erm yeah I'm looking for Henry???" Etc etc. 

JezWynd

blobb said:

Drugs stifle creativity, no matter how much those that use them say otherwise.

I disagree with that. They stimulate creativity but stifle the work ethic that can get anything meaningful done with that creativity.

slacker

All legal and subjective opinion on drugs aside I think the issue is that the rest of the band are being unprofessional,

I suggest you have a word with them and ask for honest answers on what they intend to achieve. Some people like being in a band, there's no intention of writing playing or gigging.

You obviously want to play in a band with rehearsals leading to gigs. If their honest answers match yours suggest that they treat it professionally i.e. no drink no drugs be punctional do some work do some homework set targets and achieve them.

If they can't do this I'd suggest you walk.

professorben

Gassage said:

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

Well according to the .Gov website it's a Class B narcotic, possession wins you 5 years in jail, an unlimited fine or both. 

The government (under advisement from experts prob far more qualified than you or I) deem it as dangerous as Barbiturates, Amphetamines and Ketamine. 

Teyeplayer

professorben said:

Teyeplayer said:

Off focus from the strength of our conflicting viewpoints about legislation @professorben I've a few questions that hopefully will get you thinking around the wider scenario beyond their smoking:

Do you like the guys?

Are they (weed aside) your type of people? By this I mean similar in outlook, experience and lifestyle.

Could you envisage yourself building the kind of bond with them that would lead you to calling them up for support when the chips are down? 

You said earlier in the thread that you 'wanted to be friends with them' so why was this, what stood out about them and made you want them as friends?

You don't need to answer these here, but once you have answered those for yourself we are back to work ethic and how good the music is that you are making together. You may find they are doomed to just be mates rather than creative partners.

Yes this exactly, we have good banter on our whatsapp group, we are similar ages, lifestyles (work family etc)
in short I do like them, and enjoy the sessions we have had, obvious drug issue aside, this is why I'm polling for opinion rather than just walking away full stop. 

As as it stands the choice I'm facing is whether to continue in the band or leave, unfortunately I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll not be mates with them because of this issue.  

Seems sad to me that you could lose a potentially good set of friendships over  this.

Why not broach it with them and diplomatically explain how and why you feel the way you do? Don't expect them to agree with you (as you've seen here not everyone will) and certainly don't present it as some kind of ultimatum as that can only backfire. You may find however that they are willing to not smoke around you which is certainly going to make you feel less uncomfortable about it.

As to the moral-legal bit, if in a decade it does get sold in Tesco's, looking back will you kick yourself if you lost some potentially good friendships over it? 

Cirrus

@professorben do you like "The War on Drugs"?

professorben

slacker said:

All legal and subjective opinion on drugs aside I think the issue is that the rest of the band are being unprofessional,

I suggest you have a word with them and ask for honest answers on what they intend to achieve. Some people like being in a band, there's no intention of writing playing or gigging.

You obviously want to play in a band with rehearsals leading to gigs. If their honest answers match yours suggest that they treat it professionally i.e. no drink no drugs be punctional do some work do some homework set targets and achieve them.

If they can't do this I'd suggest you walk.

See this is the issue I'm trying to get across, our rehearsals are in no way unproductive, they guys are focussed and tight, never late and always on the ball, the drugs are not negatively affecting them at all as far as I can see. 

It's the moral, legal, emotional ramifications I'm struggling with. 

Veganic

It's the moral, legal, emotional ramifications I'm struggling with. 

Can we hear some music please.


This band better be good after I have read through this non-issue.

You are not responsible for other peoples morals.

You are doing nothing illegal.

The emotional stuff, well sounds like you need some cognitive-behavioural therapy to get some perspective back.

I

Bridgehouse

Veganic said:

It's the moral, legal, emotional ramifications I'm struggling with. 

Can we hear some music please.


This band better be good after I have read through this non-issue.

You are not responsible for other peoples morals.

You are doing nothing illegal.

The emotional stuff, well sounds like you need some cognitive-behavioural therapy to get some perspective back.

I

Did you drop your spliff and have to stop typing?

EricTheWeary

professorben said:

Gassage said:

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

Well according to the .Gov website it's a Class B narcotic, possession wins you 5 years in jail, an unlimited fine or both. 

The government (under advisement from experts prob far more qualified than you or I) deem it as dangerous as Barbiturates, Amphetamines and Ketamine. 

If they're using it at rehearsal and driving home they are also committing an offence of driving under the influence of illegal drugs, as well as creating a risk to themselves and others.

Alcohol is a more destructive drug because it's far more commonly used or misused as we seem to have a poor understanding of how to drink responsibly and it's effects make it a great conduit for being violent or undertaking criminal activity. However, saying cannabis is okay because alcohol is worse is a bit of a spurious argument. 

Veganic

Bridgehouse said:

Veganic said

I

Did you drop your spliff and have to stop typing?


Sorry probably meant  


Aiiiiiii!

digitalscream

EricTheWeary said:

Alcohol is a more destructive drug because it's far more commonly used or misused as we seem to have a poor understanding of how to drink responsibly and it's effects make it a great conduit for being violent or undertaking criminal activity. However, saying cannabis is okay because alcohol is worse is a bit of a spurious argument. 

Indeed...I should qualify my earlier comments by saying that if my bandmates were getting pissed at every rehearsal, I would also be heading for the door.

As for the actual problem... @professorben - is there any reason you don't feel you can just talk to them about it and explain your position (presumably without it becoming combative)?

Gassage

professorben said:

Gassage said:

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

Well according to the .Gov website it's a Class B narcotic, possession wins you 5 years in jail, an unlimited fine or both. 

The government (under advisement from experts prob far more qualified than you or I) deem it as dangerous as Barbiturates, Amphetamines and Ketamine. 

Yet the FDA in the USA want it decriminalised and have already done so in 15 states. Strange that.

You really are talking out of your arse on the above, it's as simple as that.

In Durham the Police are now actively encouraging users to harvest their own to assist with the dealing issues and have said it's their policy NOT to prosecute.

And, re sentencing, the ladder guidelines are to prosecute after 4 warnings now so again, you're miles wide of the mark.

THe SNP wants total decriminalisation, 53% of the country support it and the Govt Advisory Council For the Misuse of Drugs have campagined for dercim since 1979. So have the Royal Society for Public Health

The Home Affairs Select Committee were only prevented from this by Keith Vaz in 2012 who refused to let it through.

Re driving, there's now a CPS prosecution guideline for it in your system BEFORE prosecution (25ng/ml)

You need to go have a spliff and chill.

Bridgehouse

I have to agree with @Gassage - no matter your views on its usage, it really does need decriminalising.. 

RocknRollDave

professorben said:

RocknRollDave said:

OK, so having misunderstood earlier, am I right to think the issue is that you are against drugs because by definition they involve an (illegal) dealer and you do not wish to support or encourage criminality, especially as you have seen the worst side of it first hand?

Yeah, that's it exactly, and by association being criminal myself. 

I know I get a tad defensive, I'm not great at seeing other people's point, but in my defence it is usually because they are wrong 

Well  in that case, I totally get where you are coming from. I guess most of us who have used/ use drugs like this turn a blind eye to the fact that the drugs come into the country via criminal gangs, and that it's all linked in with all kinds of nefarious things like prostitution, guns, people trafficking etc. Fair play to you for your stance on it, I say.

Modellista

professorben said:

Gassage said:

professorben said:

my point is not about the effects of the drug on the human body, it's about the associated criminal element that goes hand in hand with obtaining a controlled substance. 

So decriminalising it (it is partly decriminalised already) would meet with your fullest support I assume?

Re aggression, there's SO many studies that proof conclusively that alcohol is simply the most destructive drug in society when it comes to aggression, domestic violence and social violence. One study suggested it was 40 times worse than weed.

The Police themselves would absolutely agree with that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/researchers-have-finally-found-out-why-youre-such-a-mean-drunk/?utm_term=.24cd49f3cb1c

Well according to the .Gov website it's a Class B narcotic, possession wins you 5 years in jail, an unlimited fine or both. 

The government (under advisement from experts prob far more qualified than you or I) deem it as dangerous as Barbiturates, Amphetamines and Ketamine. 

And in much of Europe and the US it's legal, and surprise, surprise, we've not got a tsunami of drug casualties.  The "political football" status of cannabis classification is well-known.  I wouldn't put any store by that, or even conclude that the rules are made by people better informed that us.  Quite the opposite - when a learned chap actually dared to express relative risk  to government in a quantifiable way, he was quickly sacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Government_positions

"He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy." - which means the government only uses advisors that confirm their own political viewpoints.  Hardly evidence-based legislation.

I do take your point that simply *because* it's theoretically illegal, it's more of a problem than, say, a bottle of vodka.  But the argument that because it shares a political classification with Ketamine that it's just as dangerous is simply wrong.

Gassage

@professorben

By the way, re the thrust of your opening post, I reckon (genuinely) you should neck it with them. You've a very clear and defined view on this and whilst I personally totally disagree with you, that view is thought through and something you are very entrenched on and you are clearly, from the converations here, not going to compromise one inch.

Now, they will (as I would) totally poo-poo you to the point of just not understanding at all why you're so binary about this- I know stoners- they won't engage on this at all because the depth of your very extreme condemnation is quite rare amongst musos and in society these days (that doesn't dilute your right to hold it, I want to make that clear).

So, sooner or later it'll end in tears as the two views are incompatible and you're (sorry to say this) unusual in your view on this by the yardstick of most people I know.

PS: respect the consistancy of your stance too

professorben

Gassage said:

@professorben

By the way, re the thrust of your opening post, I reckon (genuinely) you should neck it with them. You've a very clear and defined view on this and whilst I personally totally disagree with you, that view is thought through and something you are very entrenched on and you are clearly, from the converations here, not going to compromise one inch.

Now, they will (as I would) totally poo-poo you to the point of just not understanding at all why you're so binary about this- I know stoners- they won't engage on this at all because the depth of your very extreme condemnation is quite rare amongst musos and in society these days (that doesn't dilute your right to hold it, I want to make that clear).

So, sooner or later it'll end in tears as the two views are incompatible and you're (sorry to say this) unusual in your view on this by the yardstick of most people I know.

PS: respect the consistancy of your stance too

Thanks. 
I think 

Blaendulais

professorben said:

Gassage said:

@professorben

By the way, re the thrust of your opening post, I reckon (genuinely) you should neck it with them. You've a very clear and defined view on this and whilst I personally totally disagree with you, that view is thought through and something you are very entrenched on and you are clearly, from the converations here, not going to compromise one inch.

Now, they will (as I would) totally poo-poo you to the point of just not understanding at all why you're so binary about this- I know stoners- they won't engage on this at all because the depth of your very extreme condemnation is quite rare amongst musos and in society these days (that doesn't dilute your right to hold it, I want to make that clear).

So, sooner or later it'll end in tears as the two views are incompatible and you're (sorry to say this) unusual in your view on this by the yardstick of most people I know.

PS: respect the consistancy of your stance too

Thanks. 
I think 

There's your problem