What are the real risks with Class A drugs?

PLEASE VOTE IN THE POLL LOCATED ON THE TOP LEFT OF THE PAGE.....

The government claim to be doing a great deal to tackle the major problems linked to drugs and their misuse. Although I have a degree in psychology and an MSc in public health and health promotion, I'm more skeptical about the real reasons that drug misuse tends to be linked so closely with a number of social and individual problems than a great many people in a similar position.
There are reasons that I wouldn't dispute as being reasons that drug use can lead to the problems that it does and these alone are probably adequate to deter most people from considering trying drugs. The quality factor does tend to be a major problem - that you've no real way of telling what you're going to be buying, the lack of consumer rights over quality if it is particularly bad, the lack of grounds to come back on someone who attempts to con or fraudulently sell you drugs - legally you have very little in the way of support should this take place, you are engaging in what can only be classed as an illegal arrangement if you buy street drugs. Drugs need generally to be strong enough for you to notice a change in your autonomic nervous system but refined enough not to cause much in the way of long term damage and there is scope for some individuals to take drugs over a period of years and not have much in the way of a problem but for one or two unlucky individuals to experiment maybe only once or twice and find that they've been one of the unlucky ones. In the same way that everyone who owns a motorcycle tends to think that they can do enough to reduce the chances of being involved in a motorcycle accident, those who experiment with drugs thinks that the types of personal and psychological problems that can occur will not happen to them as a user.
While I may appear to sound very much against drugs because of similar reasons to the government I think it’s worth offering explanations of street drugs and their associated problems which I think could deserve consideration. These other reasons, which I think will only get dismissed as conspiratorial, are much stronger reasons for considering avoiding drug use or misuse than many would acknowledge.
Firstly, drug misuse is costly to the government on a number of levels and any action which aims at reducing the likelihood of individuals using drugs may be in their interests, including operating services which are less favourable towards drug users than non-drug users. I have concerns that the Steven Lawrence related concerns are still not entirely addressed - race was the major issue that led to discriminatory action, though he may not have been a drug dealer or user, there still seemed to be a strong current against him or others like him who may be discriminated against by the police in a manner that the mass media may class as quite acceptable. The three major parties are relatively weak in tackling unnecessary prejudice on the part of the press who pat themselves on the back because they've recognised racial discrimination is bad - the mass media, linked to pub and alcohol vending chains through a rather disturbed international business community aren't interested in balanced opinions - they're largely interested in their profits which can be affected by drugs becoming fashionable, and thus affecting their takings. Were the media, in being involved in the Steven Lawrence incident basically saying, racism is bad and shouldn’t lead to prejudice but exercising prejudice against someone who has used or uses drugs is perfectly acceptable?
There are massive costs to bar and club outlets if the majority of individuals in the club are not using alcohol, the preferred drug of the UK government and retailers. If this is allowed and there are no disincentives for the misuse of street drugs then there could be a massive migration away from alcohol use towards use of street drugs, like cannabis, ecstasy, speed etc. in place of alcohol as some individuals choose to do.
On a few occasions I've been out with friends and we've had what I class as very unusual memory blanks, we've all forgotten what happened say between 8.00pm and 9.00pm in the evening and continued to drink alcohol without much in the way of a problem of remembering what else happened - what's unusual is that if this was due to alcohol then we would have memory through the evening which gradually deteriorated. I've found it difficult to get anyone who will agree with this but think there is a possible phenomenon that requires better explanation - I at present am being dismissed as full of conspiracy, if not totally ignored by the politicians I've contacted. I think there is facilitation and drug users are being drugged with other substances which could be the reason for the development of mental health problems.
Are the international business community so concerned about their profit margins that they would be part of facilitating or supporting action against individual drug users on the basis that it would assist with profits? I've considered what type of organisation may do such a thing and it's difficult to say that I can reasonably identify any organisation that would consider drugging drug users in order to increase the chances of them from suffering from mental health problems. Thatcher’s edict, let the markets rule, may run very true in today’s Britain – perhaps there could be greater consideration given to other risk factors associated with drug use and misuse. Are there other risk factors that are being entirely overlooked?
The criminalisation of those who use street drugs does tend to also act as not only a disincentive to many for using such substances, though it can act as an incentive for some feeling very anti-establishment, but will partly explain the social breakdown process that can be associated with an individual’s demise when classed within a group as a drug user - they become a social outcast to those who are largely concerned with maintaining social norms. Doing something illegal for almost everyone is going to be a source of stress and distress, without contributions from changes in social status as a result of having done something illegal.
This may sound as if it is gross paranoid nonsense and this may seem reason to dismiss this on the basis that there could be very little in the way of reason to substantiate what I'm stating but as I've indicated, there's very little in the way of commitment from the police towards drug users - they may be receiving a substandard service on the basis that they may have misused drugs - they'd be very much unable to get a solid report backing them up if they did have unusual memory blanks during the course of an evening they were out. What these memory blanks may be masking could be linked to all manner of government or international business community action.
There are issues regarding the diagnostic labels and what they are meant to achieve as well. If an individual has taken drugs and then makes an allegation that they may have also have been drugged by others, the police perhaps, then there could be employment of the diagnostic label schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is more than a diagnostic label – it also acts to breakdown an individual’s social networks and carries a great deal of stigma and prejudice particularly in relation to an individual potentially being violent, unbalanced or delusional. Quite insulting comments to make about an individual – is there any wonder that some people labeled as schizophrenic do become aggressive or violent in some circumstances. Schizophrenia marginalizes individuals and may be fully intended as a capitalist facilitated condition to be used to cover up what should be classed as illegal government action – surely the government wouldn’t do this to control their own populations?