[Archived] Drugs

[American]

Really ? You're about the only advocate of the legalisation of all drugs that I've ever come across . Are you that arrogant that you honestly think I'm in a tiny minority on this issue ?

You simply spout extremist nonsense - out of date and out of touch with reality

Actually Phil, your anti-legalisation stance is opposite of your mostly Libertarian views....

[philipl]

I am a Liberal in the European sense but I always understood American libertarians to be opposed to Government interference with the individual's unfettered right to chose. I believe Ron Paul is opposed to the Federal Reserve and also the FDA's ability to proscribe any drugs or treatment's before they are medically proven unambiguously bad.

With regards to majority positions, if you frame the question as to whether 60,000 people should be incarcerated in British jails primarilly because they are junkies, you will find I am in a significant majority in saying no they shouldn't be.

Edited December 31, 2007 by philipl

[blue phil]

With regards to majority positions, if you frame the question as to whether 60,000 people should be incarcerated in British jails primarilly because they are junkies, you will find I am in a significant majority in saying no they shouldn't be.

They are in prison primarily because they have broken the law . The majority of people would prefer that muggers , burglars were jailed regardless of their motives for committing crime ....and I'm damn sure their victims would take that point of view also .

These criminals would still be junkies irrespective of whether their drug suppliers are the local pushers , the private sector or the GB government . Why can't you see that ?

They would still have to find the means to pay for the drugs . The only way around this dilemma would be to dish out the drugs for free . Maybe I'm in a tiny minority here but as a taxpayer I'd suggest this is unacceptable - asking working , law abiding people to fund the wasted lives of crack and heroin addicts until they inevitably die having contributed nothing to society.

To counter this reality no doubt you'll blab on about regulation , etc .......words to hide the fact that the government would be complicit in killing its own people . Watering down the drugs wouldn't work either ....a heroin addict isn't going to take to the diluted stuff just because it's been regulated and recommended by the gov't .

And what do you think the present set of drug pushers are going to do - retire gracefully ? No , they'll look for new markets , kids who even the government won't sell to etc , etc .....

Whichever way you look at it your arguments fall apart at the seams when looked at in any depth . The only logical means of fighting the scourge of drugs is to educate those at risk from them (real disciplined education as opposed to slogans) , and to fight ruthlessly those who profit from them . Your extremist idea of total capitulation is morally corrupt as well as being utterly unworkable at street level .

[blue phil]

Actually Phil, your anti-legalisation stance is opposite of your mostly Libertarian views....

Maybe it is .....but I don't follow any party or ideological lines . All I know is that standards in society would fall even more if any government were to give its stamp of approval to the sale and /or distribution of hard drugs . It would automatically lose crediblity on a thousand related issues ......

[Flopsy]

it'l cost you less as a taxpaper to subsidise drug use than it does to keep these people in prison

[Bing]

As I've said before, how many chemists are going to be happy stocking this stuff and having 20 smackheads queueing in their shop, probably helping themselves to various other items whilst they're there?

And is the resident junkie going to nip down to Boots and pay £5 for a fix (complete with £3 tax) or is he going to ring up Dodgy Dave and get it illegally for half the price?

[Dunnfc]

I hate drugs and most people who get involved in serious hard drugs, i mean whats the point? the isnt one and i havent met one person or heard a person say since ive come off frugs ive not been a better person.

Most coke users are celebs/party gowers or yuppies but it is common for some fans to do a line or 2 in a toilet at a footy match as the was survey done not so long ago saying newcastle and man utd fans were the most common people to do the drug during a match.

Its common as well to see all these young celebs doing it.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Dunnfc

[American]

As I've said before, how many chemists are going to be happy stocking this stuff and having 20 smackheads queueing in their shop, probably helping themselves to various other items whilst they're there?

Plenty of pub owners do that now. Ever seen a dark pub at opening?

[blue phil]

it'l cost you less as a taxpaper to subsidise drug use than it does to keep these people in prison

So will the charitable acts of the tax payer extend to subsidising alcohol use ? If so I might register myself ....

Do try and think these silly comments through to their logical conclusion , Flops .

[ABBEY]

couldnt believe how many snorters there were in the grapes last night

[Flopsy]

So will the charitable acts of the tax payer extend to subsidising alcohol use ? If so I might register myself ....

Do try and think these silly comments through to their logical conclusion , Flops .

You dont get sent to prison for taking alcohol, I really do wish you'ld think before typing.

[Napoleon]

As I've said before, how many chemists are going to be happy stocking this stuff and having 20 smackheads queueing in their shop, probably helping themselves to various other items whilst they're there?

And is the resident junkie going to nip down to Boots and pay £5 for a fix (complete with £3 tax) or is he going to ring up Dodgy Dave and get it illegally for half the price?

They already do have this. Pharmacies provide methadone and other subsitute opium fixes to addicts "attempting" to kick the habit. And, the government would be able to provide drugs for quite a lot cheaper than illegal dealers can (and at higher quality) due to economies of scale and a more direct supply chain.

People who write off those who are for pro-legalisation as being hippies or drug-takers or not in touch with reality are being quite short sighted. Most of the arguments they give are also not based on facts. Governments are spending more and more money on tackling drugs (especially the US), while with each passing year the numbers of users and the problems associated with them are staying the same or getting worse. Whatever your viewpoint one must agree that this is not good value for our taxes. While anybody in a position of power is rejected out of hand and given the stigma of being "pro-drugs" for daring to speak about other options that we could take, there will never be a meaningful debate.

For the record though, people will always use drugs even though they all have risks (including the legal ones) especially when abused. The current situation puts dangerous substances and peoples health in the hands of the criminal underworld who only care about profits. In my opinion this is wrong and is not working.

[3rdpillar]

As I've said before, how many chemists are going to be happy stocking this stuff and having 20 smackheads queueing in their shop, probably helping themselves to various other items whilst they're there?

Ive said it before. The junkies already do rob the chemists when they go to have there prescription methadone administrered to them.

[blue phil]

They already do have this. Pharmacies provide methadone and other subsitute opium fixes to addicts "attempting" to kick the habit. And, the government would be able to provide drugs for quite a lot cheaper than illegal dealers can (and at higher quality) due to economies of scale and a more direct supply chain.

Even if this mass production of drugs by the government were to undercut the illegal dealers ( a very dubious claim IMO if you compare the private versus public sector in the field of providing goods ) how do you propose that the "consumers" pay for drug habits that presently cost hundreds of pounds a week in many cases ?

A debate on R5 Live yesterday included the statistic that between 80 and 90% of all heroin users (didn't catch the precise figure) are not in work .

Presumably under your scheme they would all immediately go out and find jobs paying enough to fund their drug habits ......

A more likely scenario to my cynical mind would be that they would just continue robbing and mugging and merely regard the government as just another dealer .

Another item in the news today is the government's concern that the NHS is being overwhelmed by those with self inflicted problems such as obesity , smoking and drinking related conditions .

It is little wonder then that they hesitate to add to that burden by manufacturing and distributing harmful drugs (or "higher quality" drugs as you strangely refer to them as ) .

I won't even start about the legal implications of a government that knowingly involved itself in helping to destroy the lives of its own citizens in this day and age of "human rights" .....

[colin]

I don't think the ideas proposed are for the Government to make money out of drug dealing. The aim is to break the link between criminals who supply the drugsand the addicts who use them.

A lot of the heroin which comes into this country originates from Afganistan/Pakistan/Iran where the farmers find it a more useful cash-generating crop then most others.

The supply chain and its inherent risks means that every mile it travels towards Britain means a massive increase in price and a massive decrease in purity.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of a government to destroy this supply chain by cutting out all the criminal middle-men and bringing decent quality heroin into this country to be prescibed to addicts.

The addicts can then be given doses which are not cut with rat poison, they no longer need to go shop-lifting, mugging or burglaring to feed their habits and once "on the books" can be treated to reduce their dependancy.

The other plus is that if the Government used its weight to take over the supply of heroin then the criminal suppliers would go out of businesss and there would be a monopoly supplier (the government) which would only supply to existing and not new customers.

Well, just a thought. Probably a flying Jade Goody alert, but there you go. It's an internet message board after all.

[tucker]

The other plus is that if the Government used its weight to take over the supply of heroin then the criminal suppliers would go out of businesss and there would be a monopoly supplier (the government) which would only supply to existing and not new customers.

And their stands the flaw in your argument.

Do you really think the criminal suppliers will just pack it in and up sticks, move on to something new?

You are making the big assumption that all addicts will react kindly and positively to the goverment taking measures to reduce their dependency, also what about those not 'on the books' where will they get their fix? Or will everyone just stop taking hard drugs once this generation passes?

[Eddie]

Well if the government supplies it at the same price, if not less, which you would assume they would be able to do given the fact that drug suppliers make a huge profit and the government would have some advantages, then you would have to ask why the criminals would keep it at? I'm sure it would still be there, just like you see illegal cigs and alcohol sometimes, but it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near to the level it is at now. The usage might be the same, but at least the money wouldn't be going towards criminals who are just using it to fund other activities.

[broadsword]

From a different forum:

With drugs like Heroin the idea is to decriminalise it not make it legal. i.e. you wouldn't be able to buy Heroin down your local Asda.

The was an experiment done in Liverpool where Heroin addicts could go to their doctor and be prescribed Heroin, no questions asked. The idea is that the drug dealers go out of business because the NHS is giving it away for free. So no new people become addicted (in theory). The current addicts no longer have to commit crime to fund their addiction, so the average bod in the street is not getting their house burgled. Also, although the current addicts are still taking heroin at least the drugs they are getting are "safe" and if they decide they want to quit then they are already seeing their doctor regularly.

The experiment was apparently very successful and it was repeated in America.

[tucker]

Well if the government supplies it at the same price, if not less, which you would assume they would be able to do given the fact that drug suppliers make a huge profit and the government would have some advantages, then you would have to ask why the criminals would keep it at?

Erm... I am quite sure I outlined 2 reasons in my post.

[colin]

Do you really think the criminal suppliers will just pack it in and up sticks, move on to something new?

You are making the big assumption that all addicts will react kindly and positively to the goverment taking measures to reduce their dependency, also what about those not 'on the books' where will they get their fix? Or will everyone just stop taking hard drugs once this generation passes?

Maybe they will. If the addicts can get a clean supply at a cheaper price than from expensive rat poison-cut crap from a dealer then they will move over.

Not that this is going to happen of course. The usual stance will prevail.

.......Here come the bruise brothers to tell me that I've just fallen out of the latest rainfall and that hanging and flogging and long jail sentances and military consciption will solve it all.

Don't disappoint me boys

[Guest Dik Bleek]

I think there needs to be some sort of legislation, but as with most of the outright banning laws in the UK it only drives the problem underground I think one of the silliest banning laws is for Prostitution, they have not got a chance of stopping it so why not manage it as we do in the Nederlands!

[rebelmswar]

I think there needs to be some sort of legislation, but as with most of the outright banning laws in the UK it only drives the problem underground I think one of the silliest banning laws is for Prostitution, they have not got a chance of stopping it so why not manage it as we do in the Nederlands!

Speaking of which I am going there soon for my second honeymoon, looking forward to doing a "Coffee Shop" crawl.

I see its not too expensive.

[blue phil]

.......Here come the bruise brothers to tell me that I've just fallen out of the latest rainfall and that hanging and flogging and long jail sentances and military consciption will solve it all.

Well for a while you managed to actually debate the problem .....and then you came out with this .

I'll move on ......

[blue phil]

From a different forum:

With drugs like Heroin the idea is to decriminalise it not make it legal. i.e. you wouldn't be able to buy Heroin down your local Asda.

The was an experiment done in Liverpool where Heroin addicts could go to their doctor and be prescribed Heroin, no questions asked. The idea is that the drug dealers go out of business because the NHS is giving it away for free. So no new people become addicted (in theory). The current addicts no longer have to commit crime to fund their addiction, so the average bod in the street is not getting their house burgled. Also, although the current addicts are still taking heroin at least the drugs they are getting are "safe" and if they decide they want to quit then they are already seeing their doctor regularly.

The experiment was apparently very successful and it was repeated in America.

Sounds like this person quoted has got to the bottom of how the system would work - ie , the taxpayer would fund the full monty of drugs provision , as well , presumably , as the clinics to try and wean the addicts off the drugs they have just given them .

This leaves me with a few potential problems -

1 - Is it moral for the government to dish out harmful substances to its own people (let's not kid ourselves that heroin , crack etc can ever be rendered safe whilst still remaining an attraction to the users ) . This notion that coke and heroin will be purer and therefore somehow safer is laughable - even now it is not in any (illegal) suppliers interests to kill their customers , so let's dispense with the hysterical talk of rat poison and the like ......

2 - Is the government physically capable of controlling and supplying the supply of drugs from such places as Afghanistan as Pakistan right down to the streets of our inner cities ? I somehow suspect that they cannot - wouldn't they already have done so and destroyed that supply if it were possible ? We have armies out there at the moment who aren't in control - and I need not add the people out there aren't all motivated by money and doing HMG a favour .....

3 - We should ask ourselves also at what age do people become vulnerable to drugs and how do they get these drugs ?

It is silly to think that only those over the age of 18 start drugs - they don't . So are we suggesting that minors can walk into the local clinic and ask for heroin whilst being turned away from the local pub ? And if they can't , then where are they going to get them if not the ever more desperate underground dealers who will be encouraging them all the way ?

Now I can accept that if we are prepared to stupefy hundreds of thousands of people at state expense then the crime rate may very well fall , and subsequently the prison population .

However I will never be convinced that this , in the long term , should be government policy acceptable to the electorate . It's a cop out - a plain acceptance that , as a nation , we no longer have the capacity to educate our kids (especially from the worst backgrounds) to a high enough standard to resist hard drugs , nor to fight the crimes resulting from the misuse of such drugs . It's politics of the lowest possible common denominator when we should have greater aspirations (to use Gordon Brown's favourite word....) for our kids .

Anyway , we seem to be going round in circles on this thread and I have a bad cold . Time for an aspirin.......

[blue phil]

The drug didn't work ......

On the bright side ....I missed the Coventry debacle