BS: legalisation of heroin

Subject: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 05:18 PM

There is an argument that if heroin and all illegal drugs were legalised,the motive for criminals in dealing in drugs[profit]would be removed.
That governments would be able to supervise and control disease by making sure all needles were clean etc.
Perhaps if it were legalised,governments should at the same time mount a propoganda campaign warning youngsters against it.
I,d be interested to hear opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 05:22 PM

I would like heroin to be available for hospital use as an analgesic. It would have saved both my grandfather and my step-dad considerable pain while they were dying.

That does not answer your question. But I have nothing to add that hasn't been said before.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 05:51 PM

I would like it to be legalized so the millions of pounds and equally obscene number of police man hours spent trying to catch the dealers etc could be put to better use.

If adults wish to abuse their bodies offer them help. If they don't want help let them be. Heroin itself isn't that harmful, the crud it is cut with often does the harm. The only people benefiting from criminalizing drugs are the multi million pound crooks living off the proceeds of addictions.

Sell it over the counter and the street crime and burglary rates will plummet.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:22 PM

It's really amusing that people are seriously in favour of legalising heroin yet will cry foul in a few months time if someone smokes in a pub.
Get your priorities right for f*ck sake.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:24 PM

Sounds okay. the only trouble is the young. I would certainly have given it a bash, I was daft enough - tried everything I could get my hands on.

It comes down to education. they still haven't really got round to sex education that is rooted in some sort of reality. You can't really imagine them putting together a drugs education programme that would protect our young people.

Basically we need protecting for all the holier than thou half wits that blight our political and education system, before we could consider such bold reform.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:33 PM

...& the award for the most gratuitous use of the word 'f*ck' in a Mudcat posting goes to...

Considering a grand total of 3 people had posted before you Guest, 2 in seeming favour of complete legalisation, & one of those was another Guest, I really don't think that its the priorities of the Mudcat community are at fault here...

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:36 PM

I did not say that Paul. I said I would like it to be available for use in hospitals as a pain killer for terminally=ill patients who are in severe pain.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:45 PM

"It's really amusing that people are seriously in favour of legalising heroin yet will cry foul in a few months time if someone smokes in a pub.

Get your priorities right for f*ck sake."

The point about pubs is that when someone smokes in a confined space that means second-hand smoke is blown in everyone else's faces. There are plenty of other ways of taking in nicotine that doesn't involve that kind of intrusion on others.

Incidentally tobacco kills a lot more people than heroin, so responding to that should actually be the higher priority.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

Ooops! Sorry Peace, if I've given you to think I was criticising your post at all! Actually, in answering Guest yours was the only post I did'nt allude to, meaning the good Cap'n Birdseyes, & the other Guests remark.

I'm actually very much in favour of the use of it, & of cannabis for pain relief.

As to wholly decriminalising it for the reasons the Cap'n said, I'm as yet undecided.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 07:35 PM

Hey, it's cool, man.









It's cool, bro. But thank you for the post, Paul. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 06:12 AM

I am not in favour of taking heroin.[two good friends of mine died from overdoses]
But I think that removing the incentive for criminals to make a profit out of it is important, [offshoots of this [[reduction in crime]]plus control of clean syringes can reduce the spread of aids and other un pleasant diseases[thus saving the health service money] ,.SMOKING as MCGRATH points out,can effect innocent people through passive smoking.
heroin can have a different anti social effect,the need to mug and rob innocent people, to support a habit, legalise it and your likely to reduce or possibly eliminate this anti social behaviour.
I do believe that if a government does this, they should also spend money on a propaganda campaign against people tasking it.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 06:25 AM

Good-oh, Peace!

Captain/Dick, there is much to be said for your idea. I'm actually surprised I havent come across anyone expressing the notion before!

Of course, 'Googling' for 'legalising heroin' produces thousands of results, as might be expected, but having worked with heroin users myself, I have never actually heard anyone put the idea forward, from either side of the fence.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: alanabit
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:16 AM

The argument for changing the law on heroin will eventually prevail, but it may well take another hundred years. Think of of those headlines in the Daily Mail... We need to change the whole culture around it. It needs taking out of the hands of greedy criminals. It needs to lose the mystique of being something exotic.
Weelittledrummer is also quite right to say that we also need to inform and educate people properly about what the stuff is and what it does. Cheap, clean, safe heroin available in measured doses at chemist shops would cause untold misery for thousands of drug pushers. I like that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 11:06 AM

Alcohol causes much more social harm than heroin. Let's tackle that as a priority now that the smoking in public places issue is being addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:49 PM

I AM NOT SURE I agree with you, alcohol can cause harm,but it is not as addictive as heroin,or shall I say, alcohol takes a lot longer to become addicTed to than heroin.ALCOHOL is legal.
if you are suggesting making it[alcohol] illegal,I suggest you look carefully at the prohibition years in america[ al capone etc].
I would say alcohol has been treated as a priority[drink driving laws]meanwhile, someone can be under the influence of any drug,and barring a blood test[which takes much longer],can be just as dangerous on the road,[there is no random drugalyser] and cause just as many problems,because they cant control a vehicle properly.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:00 PM

Alcoholism Statistics

Alcoholism statistics in the United States remain staggering. There are approximately 14 million people in the country addicted to alcohol and millions more who display symptoms of abuse, including binge drinking. Sadly, a reported 2.6 million binge drinkers in 2002 were between the ages of 12 and 17.
Due to the more than 2 million people per year who drive under the influence, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims that alcoholism statistics indicate 17,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in each of the last three years.

Since perceptions and behaviors become distorted under the influence of drugs and alcohol in any situation, annual alcoholism statistics also show that, in addition to traffic accidents, alcohol abuse causes:

1,400 deaths
500,000 injuries
600,000 assaults
70,000 sexual assaults

(Source: National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse)

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:09 PM

'legalization'??? for everyone who cares to? With prescription only? While under direct supervision? For pain only? For recreation? For long term use?

Can of worms!!

Heroin is bad stuff except for very limited situations. Once the BODY decides it needs, the mind has little control.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:10 PM

In fact heroin is not as dangerous or addictive as the substitutes people are given to get them off it, such as methadone.   Strange but true.

There's a lot of magical thinking around these issues. For example, that making something illegal is the best way to stop people using it.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

agreed,but addiction to heroin is still quicker than addiction to alcohol,furthermore many people can take alcohol and never become addicted,I dont think the same can be said of heroin.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 03:14 PM

It can, actually, Captain, although I certainly think heroin can do more damage in a shorter time. I have known a couple of people, who loved the first shot so much, that they realised instantly how very dangerous it would have been for them. Sadly, not everyone has that much self knowledge.
I am not trying to play down the danger of this lethal drug. I am equally convinced that prohibition will prove as effective as it has in attempts to outlaw prostitution, alcohol, boxing or gambling. Life is hard for the addicts anyway. But let's make life just that little bit harder for the criminals who prey on them.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 03:22 PM

I posted stats about alcohol because it is not good, either. I do not suggest that heroin is better. I think it should, without doubt, be used in hospitals for terminally ill people. I have seen four people--three men and one woman--die while having to tolerate pain that was barely lessened by morphine. The 'we don't use it because people might get addicted' crap doesn't apply in that situation. Anyone who has ever tried heroin will tell you how 'good' it is. There are many drugs like that. H is one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 05:24 AM

I think alcohol is as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. The big difference is that we can be sure of getting a clean unadulterated supply, and that you don't inject alcohol, so there isn't the needle problem. The prohibition on drugs is producing almost exactly the same effects as the prohibition on alcohol did in early 20th century USA- racketeering, corruption, organised crime. So much as we might dislike the effects of hard drugs, the effects of the prohibition are worse.

As for our smoking guest, the problem there isn't YOU smoking, it's you making US smoke. Smokers' helmets perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 05:55 AM

Heroin (or opiates so similar as to make no difference) are already used for pain relief in terminally ill patients, including those being cared for at home.

I don't buy the idea that you are going to solve anything by legalising heroin or any other controlled drug. Are dealers suddenly going to become legitimate businessmen and pay tax and national insurance? I don't think so. I understand the arguments about heroin and other controlled drugs being (in some measure) no more dangerous than alcohol, nocotine or the other carcinogens in cigarettes but I don't think you can solve problems of addiction and what people will do to feed it by simply changing the law. Cocaine and marijuana are also, in my view, dangerous and should continue to be illegal. With marijuana especially, there is evidence that in sufferers from schizophrenia use of marijuana prevents effective treatment by hindering the effectiveness of anti-psychotic medication.

Plus, I just don't like drug dealers. Sorry, but I think they're scum. Maybe a good idea would be for the next shipment to be intercepted by the customs people to be cut with strichnine or cyanide and then let through. With any luck, the dealers will sample the merchandise first.

Besides, junkies are just such boring people. Do you really want to encourage them?

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 07:05 AM

I suppose if drugs were decriminalised, and users could get them from legal sources, the dealers deprived of the possibility of making money that way would try to find some alternative racket, as happened when Prohibition of alcohol ended in the States.

But I think they'd find it pretty hard to find anything as lucrative or simple, and the second-order criminality of addicts desperate to get the money to fund their habit would be cut out pretty effectively.

The trouble with the prohibitionist approach is that it just does not work, and creates enormous problems in itself. It would seem far wider to adopt a different approach, drawing on the experience of other, legal drugs. Limit use in public-places, as with smoking, outlaw any kind of advertising, license certain types of provider, provide help and support for people trying to break habits. And at the same time pull the carpet from under the dealers by depriving them of their market.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 07:57 AM

"Plus, I just don't like drug dealers. Sorry, but I think they're scum."

Chris, that is a commonly held view around here. I just think that McGrath's arguments are more telling, because he is seeking to make life easier for the victims and harder for the criminals. We have to move beyond the, "Should people take drugs?" mode of thinking. Of course they should not. We can't stop them though. People will continue to abuse drugs, alcohol, women, gambling and sport. It is society's job to reduce the damage. Drug dealers understand the economics very well. If we stuff their economy by undercutting them -they can never supply clean, reliable doses as cheaply as a chemist -they are forced out of business.
Prostitution would not vanish overnight, but desperate women would not be forced to sell their bodies because they desperately craved an unaffordable drug. Indeed, the net cost to soceity would probably be less if heroin were given to those who needed it. Secondary crime can also be reduced enormously by removing the desperation of the addicts.
I loathe and despise dealers every bit as much as you do Chris. That is why I want the rug pulled from under them.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Bagpuss
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 08:06 AM

For some considered opinion and facts on this subject, try this website:

Transform drug policy foundation

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 04:13 PM

We've been involved in this "War Against Drugs" for some time now. Isn't repeating the same actions in the expectation of achieving a different result one of the classic definitions of insanity?

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST,Chris b (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 04:10 AM

Perhaps, Dick. On the other hand, perhaps the problem is that we've been going about it far too half-arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 06:07 AM

Iwould like to point out The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation,decriminalisation meens its no loNger a criminal offence,but the drugs still reMain in the hands of criminals, legalisation means the government steps in in a positive way, removing the black market and providing cheap clean supervised alternatives.
I am against decriminalisation but in favour of legalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 07:23 AM

I suppose the trouble is, there is no decriminalised zone - so to speak.

One you can get a nice shot of H and a clean syringe - then it just becomes a life choice.

Companies like ICI will market it. Racing Cars will have the Reddy Smak logo, sainsbury's will stock organic H, when they remake Now Voyager -the lovers will shoot up from the same syringe.....

why ask for the moon, we already have the stars...?

LOL

al

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

Drug abuse is already a "life choice", just a very bad life choice. Everything we do is a "life choice" for that matter. All choices aren't morally equivalent.
.........................

The term "decriminalised" is used to cover a number of different scenarios; basically it's a way of avoiding the term "legalisation", for politcal reasons.

What I'd like to see would properly be more accurately called a kind of legalisation - one that would aim to rule out the kind of commercial exploitation that currently drives the market in the legal social drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

The aim would be to achieve a set up in which it would be impossible to make big money out of drugs, and where adults could obtain "safe" supplies for personal use withiout breraking the law.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 05:55 AM

as far as decriminalisation of cannabis in the stockwell area,all it has done has meant the police turn a blind eye.,the drugs are still in the hands of criminals,who also deal in harder drugs.
unlike holland where it is legal [and government controlled ]as is prostitution,]decriminalisation and legalasation are very different .

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:15 PM

"Safe" supplies (of Heroin I presume) for personal use.......Hmmmm, you should meet my son. Then you'd know how "Safe" it is.
Mudcat seems to attract idiots like flies to dogshit.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Ian
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM

Just a point to the good captail. While alchoholmay not be as addictive as drugs. Putting a alchololic through cold turkey will kill them, whilst a drug user suffers only some none harmful pain.
I would add that the pain can not be that bad as they are willing to lapse or race back to drug use.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:59 PM

I heard that GB would provide a heroin based cocktail for the terminaly ill. The US is too Puritan for that kind of conscientious compassion.

I am also still under the impression that Holland has reversed some of its legalized drug use due to the human refuse in city parks.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM

Ian, they're willing to 'lapse or race back to drug use' because that's the nature of addiction. It's for ever. It doesn't go away just because an addict manages to abstain for a period. Ask any alcoholic, heroin addict or whoever.

And legalising the supply of a dangerous substance doesn't make it any less dangerous. Tobacco is a legal substance for anyone over 16 years of age - if the theory some people seem to be propounding on here would actually work, the incidence of lung-cancer would be significantly less than it is currently.

My case rests M'Lud.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 03:43 PM

LEGALISING the supply takes it out of the hands of criminals.
criminals quite often sell softer drugs,and then try to get their victims on hard drugs[heroin etc]
I disagree with you,supervision of clean needles[one of the reasons for legalising this dangerous substance] does make it less dangerous.
less likelihood of diseases being transmitted through shared needles,you cant argue with that i,m afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 04:09 PM

I think that the position in Holland is pretty widely referred to as decriminisation rather than as legalisation. Technically possession and sale are still illegal, but there is an official policy of tolerating it for smallish quantities, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.

I think when people favour decriminalisation they generally have something more in line with the Dutch system, rather than the botch they've come up with in England.

The grotesque thing is that, while going softly softly on recreational users in London, the State has at the very same time been coming down heavily against people who were supplying cannabis for people who have found it helps cope with medical conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis -

'Is it a crime to want to be well?':

On Friday (December 15th), a jury found the Gibsons, and an associate, Marcus Davies, guilty of two counts of conspiracy to supply cannabis between 2004 and 2005. There were tears and gasps of shock in the public gallery at Carlisle crown court when the decision was delivered. For Lezley, who suffers from MS, the decision at least ended the mental and physical agony of a prosecution that has dragged on for nearly two years. But the reverberations of the decision reach far beyond the Gibsons' kitchen in Alston. The verdict is discomforting for those who assumed this country had, in effect, decriminalised cannabis. And it is painful for those MS sufferers who have suddenly found their supply of cannabis chocolate cut off.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:03 AM

Captain, you're reduced to the ranks for your demonstration of lack of understanding. :-)

There's nothing anyone can teach me about substance abuse and addiction, or the route to it - I've experienced it all, over many years, ad nauseam, and it's been well (in fact too-well) documented on other threads. My views on the subject aren't based on what some government official, senior cop or the media choose to feed me, or on the latest utterances of the highly paid, highly educated, half-arsed, half-wit theorists, they have their foundations in long, bitter, heart-breaking experience at first-hand.

Indisputable Fact - There Is No Such Thing As Safe Heroin. Anyone who thinks that there is is a fool, and a dangerous fool at that for giving the impression that it does, or could, exist. Legalisation will not, repeat not, make Heroin 'safer'. Dispute that, and you join the idiots.

I agree with you about the 'clean needles' issue, but if you read again, you'll see that I was talking about the dangers posed by the substance itself, not the side-issues like needles, or addiction-driven crime. It would be very irresponsible and dangerous to suggest to easily-influenced young (and some not-so-young but equally easily influenced) people that Heroin obtained from 'legitimate' sources was 'safe'. I reiterate - if legality guaranteed, or increased, the 'safety' of a substance, there would be a far lower incidence of lung-cancer and cirrhosis of the liver in the world today. 'Legal' Heroin would still be a life-wrecker.

Existing addicts can never be 'cured' of their addiction, they can only learn to control it, so from that point of view they're a lost cause. The only way to prevent people from becoming addicts is by the complete removal of the subject of their addiction from circulation - that's a problem for the whole world to take on its shoulders, not just the UK. Legalisation will not prevent addiction, it will only prevent addicts from being criminalised by virtue of their addiction.

Someone said earlier, or maybe in another thread, that drug-abuse was a 'life-choice' which people are free to make. What a load of bollocks. When a 13 or 14-year-old kid is conned and fooled by the sly street-psychology of a much-older pusher, it hardly qualifies as a 'life-choice' does it, not quite the same thing as deciding what type of hairstyle to have?

Nothing attracts the wisdom of idiots so well as the Mudcat Drugs Debate. Shame so many of them confuse the opposite ends of their digestive systems.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: folk1e
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:21 AM

Question:-
1 Would the cheap and free availability of hard drugs like Meth or Heroin cause any increase of use by those already addicted?
2 What would be the motive for anybody to "push" sutch drugs where there was no proffit?
3 Would the net benifit to society be greater or lesser for this?
4 Which is moraly more repugnant, supply of an illegal drug at great proffit, or the cost to society of the activities of those who need to feed their habit?
As with all change there would be some gains and some losses. Personaly I am less concerned with the criminality of the dealers as to the devastating effects on the addicts and the levels they will go to to appese a craving!

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:37 AM

Street "Heroin" is made up of God knows what mixture of stuff, and is far more dangerous than medical Heroin, which was introduced in the first place as a safer and less addictive substitute for Morphine.

Anyone who takes it for any other reason than severe pain is acting very stupidly, but that's another matter; addiction is a seriously bad "life choice". But, as many doctors who have made that stupid "life choice" in their own case have demonstrated over the last century, where pure and uncontaminated Heroin is used, there need not be any serious health risks. The health risks come from contaminated drugs and other aspects of addicts' lifestyle, shaped by a whole culture of prohibition and illegality.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:49 AM

Extremely dangerous bullshit McG. Given your undoubted intelligence, obvious from your contributions on other threads, I'm utterly amazed at your complete stupidity and naivety on this subject (although I shouldn't be - your willingness to cloud the issue of drug-abuse by equating it with the drinking of coffee in earlier threads is a clear indicator of your lack of a real grip on the subject).

I repeat my previous comments, and clearly you are one of those who has confused the opposite ends of your digestive system.

There is no such thing as safe heroin. Period. If you believe there is, you are a clown.

You may be pleased to hear that these are my final words.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:33 AM

I didn't use the word "safe". That's an absolute term, which doesn't apply to any substance with significant effects on the body. Potentially these are all extremely dangerous, and that definitely includes heroin.

My point was that street heroin is far more dangerous, and that the present situaition is far more likely to have catastrophic consequences on users, and on society generally, than one in which drugs of known qualities were available to users from legal sources. And this is in keeping with experience in the past when this was the case in Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:06 AM

this is a bit like the Irish threads.

people think this. People think that.

The people who have on the ground experience seem to have very definite opinions.

i think (in both cases) maybe it gives them insights we need to respect.

SJ, people aren't prats because they don't know as much as you about the experience as you obviously do. Its a subject which probably affects us all indirectly and therefore we throw our ten pee's worth in. Mudcat's a bit like that.

by all means, disabuse us of our daft middle aged ideas - and I can see how it woud get you annoyed. If you want folks to vote the other way - nows your chance. Tell us as nicely as you can.

luv

al

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:37 AM

strolling you are looking at the problem from the perspective of a father with a child who is heroin addict. That makes you possibly the least adept at seeing the wider picture.

I am looking at it from the perspective of someone who's aged parent may get attacked on the street by an addict to fund their next hit, also as someone likely to suffer house burglary or the same reasons.

That is why I want it sold over the counter, to eliminate the majority of dealers and probably reduce the price of it.

If x y or z choose to take heroin in the first place, and it IS a choice, no matter how ill informed, if it wasn't a choice the whole population would be on it from their early years - then let them. They can take ownership of the pronblems they heap on themselves.

I do not want to take ownership of the by product of THEIR addiction, eg the street crime and loss of police man hours.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:29 PM

Maybe so GUEST, but the thing about explosives experts is that they have experience of explosives.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:47 PM

Aaaaahhh, now I understand, GUEST, thanks for enlightening me. Whereas, in any other aspect of life, actual long-term experience by an individual of situations would be deemed to bestow knowledge, expertise and understanding on that individual, in the special and unique case of drug use/abuse that experience actually REMOVES any knowledge and understanding! Well, f**k me, it's so obvious! Why didn't I realise? Probably because I'm not the same sort of half-wit that you seem to be.

Drug related crime is the effect caused by addiction. Cause and effect - get it? Remove the cause and the effect goes away. Remove the addictive substance and no-one gets addicted. No-one gets addicted and therefore no drug-related crime. Remove the cause (the substance) and the effect (drug-related crime), of which you apparently live in paralysing fear, goes away. Simple isn't it? Simple enough for even a dimwit like you to understand. Or am I expecting too much?

The only way to beat drug addiction is to remove the supply of the drug. Continue with the supply, be it legal or otherwise, and people will become addicted. When they are addicted to Heroin, they turn into useless zombies, unable to function normally, and they become a huge burden on society. Prevent the addiction and there's a reasonable chance they'll live useful and fulfilled lives. Is it really so difficult a concept to absorb?

McG mentioned the fact that medical practitioners have been known to get addicted to drugs and continue to function for years, but they also are frequently caught out because of their reduced capacity to function. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Heroin addicts are victims, just as much as those they rob to feed their addiction - I'd hoped I'd made that clear earlier. Their families are also victims - undeservingly so - and until you're in that position, you have no true concept of the tragedy of addiction. And negotiating the road to salvation, for an addict, is far harder than it is to get over having your wallet nicked.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 01:47 PM

And this is in keeping with experience in the past when this was the case in Britain.

To clarify what I meant by that - Heroin Addiction, Care and Control: The British System: "The decision in the 1960's to stop GP's prescribing heroin was an 'unmitigated disaster', according to Bing Spear, the former Chief Inspector of the Home Office Drugs Branch, in words he wrote prior to his death. The decision created massive problems which are only now being realised."

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:56 PM

Strolling you, me and the entire world police force are not going to eliminate heroin from being in supply. Never never never.If you have put all your eggs in such an unrealistic basket and point blank refuse to explore other options you will stay as angry as you are right now and achieve nothing.

I am far from 'paralysed' with fear. I am, like most people, aware of the unprecedented rise in street crime and house burglary due to the increasing drug problems. I am aware that the police force can not and do not have the resources or budget to tackle the problem. I do not want anymore public funding to be diverted into tackling the problem.

Addicts over stretch the NHS budget too. I would rather we get treatment when we need it. Millions are pumped into re hab programmes, addiction clinics. The addicts also over stretch the prison service. The street crimes they commit, if detected, have an effect on ALL of us.

Heroin will never be eliminated. It's time to re think and provide the addicts cheap and 'safer' heroin. If they use clean needles they lessen the risk of infection - just one more way that they currently use up NHS cash.

Give them cheap heroin and they won't need to use even more NHS money by signing up to re hab programmes to get free methadone, which is currently the norm. You yourself say the addicts are a 'lost cause', why should more money be spent on them?

Of course though, you refuse to aknowledge or answer these points as you are so entrenched in your one man war to rid the planet of the stuff.

You come across as a very pig headed man. You and your son are no more or less victims that the whole of society, who are currently suffering due to his and others like his habit.

But the only difference is you choose not to see a world with heroin in it and your son chooses not to see a world where he doesn't take it. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Meanwhile you lambast anyone who differs with you. You are not an authority on anything other than having a son as a heroin addict. That alone does not make you right. It makes you blinkered. But carry on stamping and saying the earth is flat and some one else will hopefully lessen the problem for the non users.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:20 PM

"SJ, people aren't prats because they don't know as much as you about the experience as you obviously do."

sorry SJ - got that one wrong......!

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: alanabit
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:49 PM

Hi Johnny, I guess I could be in danger of getting close to a raw nerve here, but I want to add my two pence worth. I am hoping to do this without some of the rancour, which can emerge from what I realise is a painful and emotional subject for you. If I could start with a statement you made, which oddly enough, I agree with:
"The only way to beat drug addiction is to remove the supply of the drug."
Sadly, I don't see the removal of the supply of the drug happening whatever the legal status of it is. I do not know of a society, which is or ever was drug free. I would like to see drugs, guns, many forms of gambling and many forms of usury legislated out of existence. I am simply stuck for an example of anything, which has been successfully legislated out of existence. As long as there is a demand for something, experience shows us that someone is prepared to supply it. As I said earlier, by definition, prohibition means handing over the supply and control of any given commodity to criminals.
In the case of hard drugs, this has been particularly catastrophic. Heroin (as we both know) is nasty enough anyway, without adding the accompanying dangers of dirty needles, severe weight loss and the risks of constantly being at the mercy of criminals. The very illegality of heroin and cocaine artificially inflates their price (without seriously reducing the supply). Thus it is that the dealers get the best of both worlds. The drug, for the early or moderate user has a mystique. This helps to entice new users. However, once the user is an addict, there is a stigma. This makes it more difficult for the addict to seek and accept help.
If the drug is supplied by chemists, it will be available in controllable doses and clean. It also loses this phoney mystique, which surrounds it. It can undercut the street price, smashing the dealer's profit margin. If I might add two words to your statement, we would have; "The only way to beat drug addiction is to remove the supply of the drug – from criminals."
You have no enemies here Johnny. We are not fools either. We have simply come up with the conclusion that the current drug laws are making life too easy for the criminal. Once their fat profits are slashed and their operations collapse, they find out how many friends they have. Not many round here for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM

Another note of clarification:

"...to cloud the issue of drug-abuse by equating it with the drinking of coffee in earlier threads"

That wasn't actually what I was doing - my point in those discussions was about the use of kabguage. The term "drug" does not just mean harmful or illegal drugs, it covers a wide range of substances, some of them much less harmful than others, and ranging down to substances such as caffeine in tea and coffee and theobromine in chocolate.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM

Another note of clarification:

"...to cloud the issue of drug-abuse by equating it with the drinking of coffee in earlier threads"

That wasn't actually what I was doing - my point in those discussions was about the use of language. The term "drug" does not just mean harmful or illegal drugs, it covers a wide range of substances, some of them much less harmful than others, and ranging down to substances such as caffeine in tea and coffee and theobromine in chocolate.

Subject: RE: BS: legalisation of heroin
From: Podger
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM

The government should give it away free. The dealers would all go broke and the kids would have nothing to do with it.