1

Not from "ere"

Any excuse will do for some. Anyway, from what I hear Jersey has always had a drink problem. So “life enriching”!!!

Report abuse

3

Adrian

This drink problem has been getting worse and worse and I believe it is now the worst in western Europe behind Luxemburg, another finance centre as it happens.

Jersey stress levels are going through the roof as work becomes more and more stressful, and people are expected to jump through more and more hoops just to keep their jobs. Work is the equivalent of a nightmare for many now. As far as I am concerned incompetent and unsimpathetic management are driving people to breaking point. Factor in a government who hasn’t got a clue what to do and it is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

Suicide and depression are also at very high levels historically as well. So much for a nice quite, caring place to live.

Report abuse

5

Jane

Good God 1st it was Cigarettes now it is the Booze, what next, mind u they say everything is bad, if we listened to them 100% we would die of starvation & thirst as we could not eat or drink anything
What else do they expect in this Island, their is nothing else for people to do, they have got rid of all the places we used to go to.
Why can’t they just let people be it is a free world.

Report abuse

7

Clement Girl

Statistics again ! Recession for many means a tightening of belts, as it has been for me in one way or another. So could this not mean that instead of a person drinking 2 glasses of wine in a bar costing £5, now being switched to a person buying a bottle or ltr of wine in a supermarket for £4 ? Therefore these statistics are based on volume purchased ! Often we would meet up in a bar and enjoy a couple of glasses each, but with those high bar prices nowdays, we have switched to the 3 of us sharing a bottle at one of our homes now.

Statistics are a wonderful way of making any form of research sound either good or bad, all depending on what the surveyor wants to announce !

Report abuse

9

Helen Back

Nick, True will this be going the Breda book of records! hope so, at least we can do something right on this island, Break records! yey, now i fancy a drink, oh and a cigarette. I think we can break records in other areas too!

Report abuse

11

Jon

Adrian you are spot on. Employers within the finance sector like to sing their own praises of how “caring” they are to their staff and even go to the lengths of holding annual polls to hear how good they are. When in fact they are mounting more and more pressures on their staff and at the end of the day are only thinking of the bottom line and their profits.

Report abuse

13

bella

Leave us alone and let us drink ourselves into oblivion,since you in gov are responsible for making our lives so miserable that drink is the anesthetic,otherwise you will be overthrown in a revolution of the sober!

Report abuse

15

Hop Farmers Son

About a week ago I went out with my wife for a Chinese Meal and as I was driving I asked for a pint of Orange Juice and lemonade, when we finished the meal we got the bill and I was shocked to find out for having that Orange Juice and Lemonade the cost was £4.50 my wife had a glass of wine and that only came to £2.60, no wonder people are turning to Alcohol as it is cheaper than trying to be sensible, only in Jersey!!!!

Report abuse

17

sideline

cheers IL have what your having, [hic blurp]

Report abuse

19

noah

this is just to warm you up for another price hike on alcohol.
“if we make it more expensive people wont drink as much”!
i have heard thar somewhere before.

Report abuse

21

Green Bean

Ish yous sayin im a drunk … what youzz looking at … yousss want a fight … i’zz love you man .. you are my besht mate in the world!
I dont have a problem wiv drink … i drink … i fall down … no problem!! Sssshhimples!!

Report abuse

23

Mark

Surely it’s all those ’000s of tourists coming through the island each year skewing the drink figures?!

Won’t be long before we start seeing large “Alcohol may harm your health” warning labels on drinks, akin to the cigarette warning labels.

Report abuse

25

Jersey Boy

I do have a couple of things to point out.

1) Why are we definatively stating that this rise in drinking and drugs is directly related to the recession? in my mind its just a trend of Jersey culture regardless of the economy, infact would probably be worse if people could afford more booze.

I dont know about you fellow posters on here, but if I’m having a tight month and money is low, the last thing im going to do is spend the few pennies I have on booze. Specially with Jersey prices.

2)Also could someone clarify, is the number of people admitted to the Gen Hospital (in JEP full article), is this people going in for major treatment (liver failure or something)? or does this include stats from A&E. If it does include A&E then im not really that shocked, in fact i thought it was rather low.

Also “alcohol related issues” is a bit ambiguos. Does that mean if i get drunk, trip over, bank my head and need stitches, is that classed as an alcohol related issue? or is it only where the amount of alcohol i have consumed thats the medical problem.
(Otherwise theres an argument to say that someone getting knocked over by a Blackthorn delivery van, was an alcohol related issue lol) <– sorry thats me just being silly!

Report abuse

27

deep thought

Well first of all i drink to get steaming not because i am stressed.

second, if anything was going to stress me out its not the recession, its the fact the states don’t listen to the public. Its like talking to a brick wall. No matter how many people don’t want something the states will go ahead and do it anyway (still annoyed by the loss of gas place car park by the way).

Third, this is all probs a load of rubbish and just an excuse to raise prices i.e. more money for the states. all the time telling us it is for our benefit

Report abuse

29

SYSH

The pubs are empty because people cant afford their prices and therefore more people are drinking at home, a much much cheaper option, and therefore they are drinking much more. This will no doubt cause big increases in drink related illness and accidents, domestic violence and divorce figures. In the past people went to pubs to socialize and their drink consumption was restricted to a degree by the landlord. Now many people can only afford to drink at home -alone. A sad relection of our times.

Report abuse

31

Adrian

Jon people are only numbers now at work. The mqanagement are only interested in extracting more and more for less and less pay. The worn out phrase if you won’t do what we want you can find another is a great one to pressure workers under the cosh of rising taxes caused by the very smae businesses they work in.

The management know they will get what they want as there are no half decent alternatives out there. It is a very sad state of affairs now. It is better to retired as opposed to under these sort of work pressures over here.

At least they are guarenteed an income every month come what may at present. Their bills are also much reduced as most own their own houses and aren’t beholdent to greedy landlords, unlike most younger people who can’t afford to buy.

No wonder depression is rising as is sickness over here. Social security is bearing the brunt of this work till you drop culture that marsqerades as work. Push people too far and they will either crack or drop out. Some will obviously ask why work yourself to an early grave when you can claim welfare due to a stress related injury etc?

Work needs to made much more appealing to stop this drop out culture. Drink and drugs are a side effect of all this stress especially from the workplace.

As I said before Jersey is second to Luxemborg for drink issues now across western Europe. Funny that both are finance centres.

Report abuse

33

Blue Knight

Heavy drinking and drug abuse has been a problem for years. I recall a study in the 90s revealed that per head of population, people in Jersey drank twice as much as they did in the U.K. Then of course there are those that don’t drink at all.

The problem is if there is drink related violence and whether statistics show this is on the increase. Also of concern is whether increased drinking is causing more mental and physical health problems.

The Jersey Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association will no doubt be rubbing their hands with the increased profits if the above report is accurate. The States Treasurer will also be pleased with the increased taxes. This of course has to be balanced against the policing costs and additional demands on the health service.

Who dares proffer a solution? You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Report abuse

35

Blue Knight

Tom # 34 – Because it’s naughty. Studies have shown that in many cases cannabis leads to mental illness and legalising it would open up Pandora’s box. I agree that alcohol is a big problem, but if the authorities legalised drugs it would create even more problems, particularly with driving and operating machinery – not to mention the increased tar that goes into to your lungs. These problems would contribute to the deficit in the budget of the Island’s Health Department. I await the responses to this with interest…..it’s good to debate isn’t it?

Report abuse

37

Pip Clement

I know a few long term cannabis users who have been smoking the stuff a few times a week for decades.
They do not smoke and drive but save it up for the evenings or the weekend like most people who like a drink.
They hold down responsible jobs, some of them work in the finance industry!, and seem like responsible members of society apart from the fact that their recreational substance of choice is illegal, while mine a nice glass of Bordeaux is legally available.

Report abuse

39

Blue Knight

Tom # 38. Sorry to disappoint you but I only read The Sunday Times, which usually lasts me all week as I have to keep checking the dictionary to work out what is being said.

I do not consider myself to be an expert on drug use and I am open to persuasion by informed debate based on emperical evidence.

My view is my view, based on what I have seen over many years dealing with drunks and drugged up individuals. I may however change my mind by reasoned arguement.

Many of the people I encountered who took drugs – including cannabis – were sad individuals and some had clearly developed psychosis. Similarly many people who were habitually drunk, were mentally ill.

You’ve got a lot to do to convince that your assertions are right. Of course I may be wrong; as I said this is just my view and I appreciate that you are entitled to your opinion. At this stage however, I think we will agree to disagree.

Report abuse

41

Tom

@35 Blue Knight that should have been in my last comment!

Report abuse

43

Stan Still

Please excuse me Blue Knight for the plagiarism but I thought your post could equally read as follows if it had been written in 1920 America:

Studies have shown that in many cases alcohol leads to mental illness and legalising it would open up Pandora’s box. If the authorities legalised alcohol it would create even more problems, particularly with driving and operating machinery. These problems would contribute to the deficit in the budget of the Island’s Health Department.

Report abuse

45

Blue Knight

Stand Still # 43. And your point is? Alcohol continues to cause misery and often brings out the worst in some people if people over indulge. One can only imagine that drugs will also cause similar problems if legalised – it is up to you if you want to take the risk.

Report abuse

47

Blue Knight

Mona Lot # 46 Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia.

If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. There is emprical evidence that shows that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Drinking alcohol from an early age can also cause severe problems. I obviously agree that this is often a contributory factor in violence. Yes cannabis has the reputation of making people chill out when they are under the influence. However long term use of cannabis, on the other hand may still result in psychosis, which often leads to violent behaviour.

Many of course will disagree and that’s their perogative. As I’ve said before, my views are my own and I will only change my opinion, when others present convincing evidence to the contrary.

Report abuse

49

Jersey Boy

I dont want to sound like a square. but until the point when someone convinces the government to legalise cannabis, it is still classed as illegal and therefore any one using, buying or selling it, is a criminal!

Regardless of how stupid you think a law might be we still need to obey them. I imagine if you ask a cocaine user if they think its bad for them they will tell you cocaine is awesome and should be legalised. its doesnt make it right.

I know alot of people who used to smoke cannabis back in my college days and they always came out with the usual “its harmless” speach. Now they regularly take things like ecstasy and coke. I think once you get into the mindset that drugs arent as bad as we think its a slippery slope. and we all know that these harder drugs definalty do ruin lives.

However, I will say, Alcohol certainly seems to me, to be the worse of the 2. I remember reading a survey that graded drugs and drink and smoking to see how much it had an effect on the user, and the people around the user. Alcohol got the worst score!! cannabis barely made it on the top 20, infact i think it was only included in the list to make a point.

Report abuse

51

Jersey Boy

Stan Still @ 50

I see your point, but would you not still have the crime from people trying to acquire money to buy such drugs?

Also are we still talking only about legalising cannabis or are we now suggesting all drugs? because quite frankly the latter is ridiculous.

Report abuse

53

truthseeker

51 You are missing stanstill’s points so well made,prohibition failed horribly….making drugs illegal artificially inflates drug prices manyfold thus giving the barons and pushers power and money it fuels the trade…let it be legal…and the price plummets the barons go out of buisness ,who is going to risk ten years jail for a low price item..no one so you effectively neuter the trade,well what about users …educate people as to what drugs can do and let them have personal choice…you are at liberty to shave your scrotum with a cut throat razor…not advisable but it’s supposed to be a free country,you know the risks you live with the consequences.

Report abuse

55

PJG

I can see on the benefit side of legalising cannabis, it would then be sold in reputable “licensed” establishments and be taxed and controlled similar to how alcohol is now (that works well doesn’t it?).

Hopefully that would break the contact chain (back street dealer) to more dangerous drugs. People who use Cannabis and then realise it’s on the whole a mild relaxant would not then come to the conclusion the law is wrong about all illegal drugs.

I can possibly see our alcohol laws being easily “adjusted” to cope with the sale, tax and policing of cannabis use so long as an equivalent to the breathalyser for cannabis was invented. I believe there would have to be a lot of money spent on research into safe levels of cannabis intoxication for driving etc.
And don’t say only zero levels for driving, when would one be safe to drive after “just one” j? An hour, 2 weeks, a month? Traces of cannabis can still be found in the blood 6 weeks after smoking one joint, would you be happy with bus drivers taking your kids to school like this?

Money would also have to be spent on cleaning up the streets when people have “legally” mixed the two drugs and vomited over everyone and thing.
Nothing quite like the Psychedelic spray of a five finger spread from a stoned piss head.

We may not have many stoned and disorderly on the streets, but what about the stoned+drunk and incapable that will be filling up the hospitals, shelters and police cells.

Or do we just let them freeze to death in their own vomit on the pavements.

To pay for the levels of care required by this new drain on the health service, (how many lethargic tokers with hangovers would be signed off work due their inability, or even care to get it together in the morning?) the tax on cannabis would probably make it more expensive than it is now from the illegal dealers, or maybe we could put another 5% on GST?

That would make my breaking the chain argument redundant, dealers would be able to sell it cheaper than licenced establishments.

So all you lets legalise it brigade, how about some seriose thinking of how legalising “another” drug would affect society, rather than the knee jerk selfish “I could get a stash cheaper if it was legalised”.

Report abuse

57

Real Truthseeker

Adrian – you certainly like to make up number don’t you. Where did you get the 5% – ‘They’ claim. Who exactly is ‘they’, cause I always here alot about ‘they’, who are used as a definitive group on every statistic you, truthseeker, and Pip use to make a point.

Face the fact – ‘They’ is irrelevant, along with your views.

Dept of Health state that the majority of long term cannabis users will suffer moderate to severe pscyhological and mental illness. FACT!

So, who cares what ‘they’ say, let’s listen to the relevant bodies who research this.

Secondly, your claim about incompetent managers – well the only reason why they fly people like myself in to manage the Jersey-man, is because there is no talent in Jersey to do so. I came here on a J-Cat twelve years ago before getting married in 2009. The drinkers are drinkers to blot out incompetence. FACT!

Report abuse

59

Tobias

Good posts on here by PJG and Blue Knight, adding intelligent reasoning to the anti-legalisation route.

Whilst personally I am generally in favour of relaxing the cannabis prohibition, as correctly pointed out there would be a problem with stoned drivers – there’s no easy roadside test for it yet, although Germany have experimented with a hair-sample test. Trouble here is passive smoking – “I didn’t have any, officer, but the guy next to me did”. Very difficult to police effectively and would open up all sorts of problems.

Whilst I’m sure many of us enjoy the occasional harmless spliff at weekends to wind down after a long week at work, there’s always going to be the idiots that take it too far – for example the muppets at Jersey Live back in 2009 that got completely wasted and thought aliens were coming to abduct them etc, it was these sort of people that were responsible for the knee-jerk reaction by Health dept in banning the legal highs such as Spice – such a shame as this product, whilst obviously not safe, as no mind-altering substance can ever be so – was still considerably less harmful than alcohol and was intended for use as a cannabis alternative. Taxed and controlled, it took money away from the illegal drug dealers and was in some ways rapidly becoming the ‘acceptable face’ of recreational drug use.

I guess there will always be those that have to go too far and abuse substances, whether it be alcohol, cannabis, Spice, even the harder substances. If only everyone in society could control themselves, there’d be no need to ban anything.

Report abuse

61

C Le Verdic

#59
‘Whilst I’m sure many of us enjoy the occasional harmless spliff at weekends’

How can it be harmless if you smoke the damned thing?

Report abuse

63

PJG

Grumpy Beggar#62
Yes you are correct, present laws do not allow driving while under the influence of drugs.

But as Tobias correctly states what is missing is a means of roadside testing for them.
A suspect has to be taken to a police station where he will be examined by an FME who will pronounce him/her fit or not fit to drive through the affects of drugs. Not exactly a five minute process the public would appreciate undergoing after every moving traffic violation.(you crossed the white line back there sir, Leave your car here and 3 hours down the station for you, just in case you had a joint last night)

Where you are wrong is the law does not make the giving of blood or urine samples compulsory where a breath test has proved negative for alcohol, if drugs are suspected. Even if it were there are no prescribed levels of drugs in the urine/blood to be fit/unfit to drive for the measurement to be meaningful.
At the moment there is no legal limit of how much cannabis one has to have in your urine/blood to be incapable of driving one would only be convicted on the assessment of a doctor.
It may surprise that is also the same for a pushbike rider who is considered too drunk to ride his bike, no prescribed alcohol limit for riding a bicycle only an FMEs assessment.

And this is only one small example of laws that would have to be changed before society could “safely” live with legalised cannabis yet alone all drugs.

Report abuse

65

Gone fishing

#63 PJG “And this is only one small example of laws that would have to be changed before society could “safely” live with legalised cannabis yet alone all drugs.”

You speak as if criminalising {an arbitrary subset of} drugs was the same as preventing the consumption of those drugs. It isn’t. As you know, an ever-increasing number of people take illegal drugs, despite (actually, largely as a result of) all the expensive efforts made to prevent it.

This, against a social backdrop in which an ever-increasing quantity of drugs (in the truer, wider sense) are consumed. You, I and probably everyone else commenting here, take drugs, with some people rationalising their consumption on the basis that “I only use alcohol/tobacco/tea/pills, and they’re legal, so I’m not actually one of those despicable drug-users.”

So the choice for society is not between living ‘safely’ with prohibition, or ‘unsafely’ with ‘drugs’, but between the known damage being done by prohibition, and the known implications of a control-tax-and-care approach.

Do you think that if alcohol was criminalised, alcohol consumption would cease, and society would become safer? – because that was what the powers-that-be thought about ‘drugs’ when the modern UK prohibitive regime was introduced in the 60s. The story since then has been one of ongoing exponential rates of consumption, and the steady breakdown of society.

All this has happened, because people in authority have kept clutching the comfort-blankets of two constantly-repeated lies: “I don’t take drugs” and “Criminalisation will stop drug-use”.

The essential implications of a control-tax-and-care approach are known – since this, (minus the taxation) was what existed before the utterly-failed ‘drugs war’.

If you believe that banning drugs is a positive approach, with a proven track-record for eradicating consumption, reducing crime, and generally improving society, you should surely be in favour of extending that approach to all psychoactive substances, not just a convenient arbitrary subset. You can hardly justify our present selectively-punitive regime on the basis of, “There isn’t a good roadside test for cannabis, and some other law-changes might also be complicated”.

Report abuse

67

Gone fishing

#66 PJG

Perhaps we agree on more of this than we disagree on – and it’s good to have a discussion without either side trying to batter the other into submission! I think, for example, that we both value the idea of a safe society, and we would agree that driving (for example) under the influence of a drug, whether it be alcohol, cannabis, or whatever, has a negative impact on public safety. The question then, surely, is whether society is safer overall in a controlled environment where drugs are sold at a generally-affordable price, consumers know what they’re taking, and the taxpayer benefits – or safer in an uncontrolled environment where the market is handed over to mafia bosses, with ultra-high prices, uncertain merchandise, and ordinary citizens being burgled and mugged.

A rule banning consumption of a particular drug doesn’t prevent consumption of that drug – in fact, by creating a lucrative criminal market, it makes that consumption more common, just as it did in the case of alcohol in the US in the 30s. More importantly in terms of our common goal of public safety, prohibition doesn’t prevent harmful activity post-consumption. So prohibition may give an illusion of public safety, but an illusion is all it is. Prohibition focusses on consumption, where the focus should be on harm. A law simply banning alcohol wouldn’t distinguish between people getting drunk and beating someone up, and people simply having a drink – but such a law would make it much more likely that someone would be robbed or beaten up in order to obtain a drink. Similarly, a law simply banning heroin doesn’t distinguish between people who simply use heroin, and those who steal to obtain the money to buy heroin.

The lack of a roadside test for cannabis is unfortunate – but it remains equally unfortunate whether or not cannabis is banned – for the reality is that people use cannabis now (just as they use a range of legal and illegal drugs).

So, to answer to your central question as honestly as possible – I believe that an island in which all drugs were legal would be no less safe in many respects than the situation we have at the moment, and significantly safer in the majority of respects. Public health would improve. Burglary and theft would reduce. The power of criminal gangs would be curtailed. These are significant measures of the safety of a society.

I’m not suggesting that we ‘repeal laws on cannabis and see what happens’. I’m suggesting that, removing the beer-goggles and looking dispassionately at what’s happening now, and with the lessons of history easily available, we should repeal laws banning all drugs, in the knowledge that the result would be a significantly safer society.

I’m intrigued, though, why you should say, “It is precisely because alcohol prohibition fails that we have such extensive “controls” on its use.” I agree absolutely with this statement – but why do you believe the decision about whether to prohibit alcohol or to manage it under a control-tax-and-care regime should be based on pragmatic logic, but the same principle should not apply to other substances? After all, there is nothing inherently ‘nicer’, less-prohibitable or more virtuous about alcohol, or tobacco, than any other drug.

Report abuse

69

Gone fishing

PJG #68

“drugs would have to be taxed to an extreme making them comparable if not higher than the dealers prices. One only has to look at the tax on cigarettes and alcohol at the moment, each of these items are cheap to produce but its caring for their addictive after effects that costs society so much.”

Licit supply at a higher cost than illicit supply, is a situation which can not occur sustainably, because the licit suppliers are driven out of business (see my final para). The marketplace ensures that. Also, a look at current revenue and spending shows that a far lower level of taxation than what you’re proposing, easily exceeds the revenue required for related health services. Drinkers and smokers are net contributors to revenue, and government (far all its pious talk about deterring consumption) is eager to see that nice little earner continue.

“use of alcohole reduced considerably, much the same as usage reduced when it was banned in USA.”

Usage of alcohol increased significantly under U.S. Prohibition (as did crime). Both decreased after repeal.

“unless we let the users die and rot in the street as an incentive not to partake welfare costs would multiply.”

Pretty much what we do at the moment, in respect of the drugs which happen to be illegal. Criminalisation enormously increases the health risks for users. The story of the drugs war is in many ways the story of government punishing people for putting things into their own bodies, by making sure that as many of them as possible suffer health problems needlessly. And government spending on healthcare targetted at users is a tiny fraction of government spending on associated enforcement and prison costs.

“prohibition coupled with zero tolerance and draconian punishment can work even if it’s only partially”

Are you recommending wider use of the Sudan approach? Penalties up to and including mutilation and death don’t seem to be much of a deterrent, any more than the “Let’s make sure they get HIV or inject brick dust” UK approach. But in any event – on what moral grounds does a government decide to destroy its own citizens for treating their bodies as their own? If it’s defensible, why not adopt the same approach with e.g. obese people?

“with their acceptability their usage would increase”

This has not been the experience in jurisdictions where decriminalisation has been tried. On the other hand, availability and use of illicit drugs have both dramatically increased throughout the time that those drugs have been illegal. Do you imagine that it’s at all difficult to obtain illegal drugs? I can remember a time when a dealer was a very rare bird indeed – before the drugs war began. These days, they’re more plentiful than political promises.

“if the price of [alcohol and tobacco] still makes it attractive to smuggle them in to avoid tax why do you think the drugs won’t?”

This is a question of pricing structure and over-greedy taxation, not criminal status per se. If government sets the price too high, a black market is generated.

Report abuse