Nimbus

Is this guy completly off his rocker...?

"Heroin is a very, very addictive substance, extremely addictive, far more so than nicotine, but it's not very, very dangerous. It's perfectly possible to lead a normal life for a full life span and hold down a job while being addicted to heroin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3460485.stm


He's happy enough to prosecute drivers for driving 1mph over the limit and there by turn ordanary law abiding people into criminals. Now he wants to legalise drugs and turn criminals into law abiding citizens...

Being very adictive, it will drive people to crave it more and more, turning to crime to feed their habit. Doesn't he think that making it more available will mean that more people will use it and increase the crime rate associated with drugs?

He needs booting out...

OllyK

Think it just goes to prove that every opionion this guys has is completely wrong:
"Speed cameras save lives" - wrong
"You can live a normal life when adicted to heroin" - wrong
Give up and resign you muppet

NACRO

'Legalising' Heroin or as he suggested controlling it via prescription is not going to make it more widely available, in fact if anything it would probably lead to a long term decrease in consumption as well as ensuring contaminated supplies don't reach the market. The drug is already widespread and cheap despite it's legal status. Making a substance/object illegal doesn't control the market, it merely drives it underground and gives the control to gangsters.
Lots of deaths occur when unusually pure product hits the market and addicts O/D when taking their hit. A legal source of this cheap to produce drug sold at cost price would remove most of the crime and health problems related to use of the drug.

Look at it this way, current policy isn't working, at all so a radical solution such as this one could hardly be any worse. Personally I'd legalise all substances and let people make their own decisions as to whether it is a good choice for them.

As he correctly said maintained addicts can fucntion so normally that you would not be able to tell they had a problem. As I see it the main problem with these substances is their very illegality not their soporific or addictive qualities.

BTW he's wrong about speed limit enforcement but credit where credit is due he had ***** to say what he did about heroin.

RichWalk

Nacro; totally agree, yet again its peoples perceptions that ruin attempts like this to actually help a problem that most would rather ignore. It out their its cheaper than dope and their are many adicts. Not sure this countrys got the stomach for such a policy though.

GreenMachine

Guess you have read "High Society" by Ben Elton then?!

How do the Dutch get on with their more liberal approach?

Diesel

"It's perfectly possible to lead a normal life for a full life span and hold down a job while being addicted to heroin".

That's actually true. Think Will Self maybe.

HOWEVER because of the same copper there is a rally being help in N Wales to protest at his persecution of ordinary decent motorists; HOW sad is that. HOW big a wedge has this idiot driven between himself and the ordinary public; people dont much care if someone does 70 on an A road, but they do care that the burglary figures are going up virtually proportionaly to every Gatso planted...

OllyK

So what's the approach, you just let anybody who wants it have a prescription? Do you try and get the addicts off heroin and on to methadone or similar and eventually clean?

You are still going to have the proportion who do not want to give it up and so will still require an illegal source for the drug. Prescription is still putting it under control and placing conditions on if you can or can't have it, those that are told no, will continue to go underground and the problem continues.

Well I don't personally want to get on a bus, train, plane in a cab with somebody who is high on heroin at the time behind the wheel. I can think of countless other situations where it would be a really bad idea as well.

How do you manage employees that are high? Do you give them time outs during the day to go and shoot up then check them every half hour after until the drug is out of their system before letting them continue?

The police are trying to crack (no pun intended) down on drink and drug drivers, quite rightly so in my opinion, most people drive badly enough when sober without adding to the problem. So if you are not in a fit state to drive, what makes you in a fit state to perform other tasks? Or by holding down a job are we meaning sweeping the streets (no offence to those people who do), where they are of minimal danger to others and are not likely to make bad descisions that will affect a company's business?

King RA

Whilst herion was legal in the 30's there were many prolific figures of society addicted to heroin at the time, unknown to the public. In it's pure form heroin is not a dangerous drug, addictive yes, dangerous no.

The blinkered view of people in this forum is the same reason why so many people die each year from drug realted deaths. If you actually sat down and looked, our drugs policy in this country DOES NOT WORK, it causes a damn site more deaths than this approach would.

I could go on, but I've argued this point before on this BBS and there is no swaying some people.

So just like Saxo Boy, I can't be arsed.....

goodbye.

lmsbman

A few weeks ago I posted a thread entitled" Radical way to raise money for victims of crime". Unfortunately, I can't find it on SN3. If anyone can, I'd be obliged if you'd link it.

jason4656

sorry this is bullshiit, this is the perception of the so called people in authorities helping by giving out methadone?? people who try to convince you to go into health authority detoxs and rehabs that teach heroin addicts to drink sociably??

They havent got a clue, This is not about a substance, people abusing heroin are addicts, addicts in nature, it doesnt matter what the drug is, be it crack, charlie, or heroin its all the same, be it shopping, sex, gambling or **** it really doesnt make a different, addicts will do anything to get their fix, rob old grannies, their families and friend and whoever. As soon as people start to realise more the core to the problem then the country may start to go more in the right direction.

I dont mind saying and have said before, i am in recovery, have been clean a long time, sadens me to see the state of the country, when there is alot of people out there involved in stuff that are helping people to recover for free!

NACRO

In repsonse to the comments about people driving/flying or whatever- how do we ensure that they aren't high on heroin or similar at the moment? That argument is irrelevant in discussing whether or not we should remove the drug from the black market. Legal or illegal the same methods of detection would apply.

Making it legal won't mean that everyone will suddenly start taking the stuff-if I wanted to take a substance at the moment I would do regardless of it's legal situation, it just so happens I can see that heroin is counterproductive to the goals I wish to achieve in my life. As for giving methadone it's an approach which has been tried and has failed. Methadone is a far worse substance than heroin, in giving it to addicts all you do is substitute one illegal drug of dependancy with another legal alternative.

My argument isn't about rehabilitation of the addict, more that the state needs to take control by supplying it at cost price to addicts, forever if need be. I feel that a lot of objections to this drug in particular aren't based on the facts of the matter, more on emotive and moral issues, not to say years of indoctrination that people have swallowed ie drugs are bad. Drugs aren't bad, they aren't 'evil' they are just substances that some people choose to abuse. By criminalising possession and making supply the domain of criminals we worsen the potential problems a thousand fold. The 'war on drugs' is not working. What do we do carry on with a policy which doesn't work because it is 'right', or do we take a pragmatic view that any change has to be worth trying. After all we could hardly do worse than we have been doing over the past 70 yrs or so.

Brendan Hughes

Was that the one about £5 tax on speeding tickets goes towards burglary victims?

NACRO

Jason if the fix doesn't cost anything then surely the need to rob would not exist?

I do agree with your comments about addictive personalities though- heroin, alcohol, sex- whatever, people with a prediliction for adictive behaviour will always find an outlet for it.

Scooby96

"RA - it causes a damn site more deaths than this approach would"

Erm how do you know that???

lmsbman

Nah, it was about legalising drugs and taxing them.

jason4656

actually nacro due to my obvious outlook on addiction, i dont see it as a totally bad thing to be honest,

lowering crime rate
lowering deaths thorugh dirty gear

however another point is, normal people dont use heroin, they know its fuked up, and they dont do it, addicts on the other hand will try anything to get high, out of it. If its legal, addicts dont just want to "stay addicted" or just "get by" feeling normal they want to be out of it, the potential for od with pharmaceutical gear is much higher unless administered then it would defeat all the object and bring on another mess like methadone.

people will use legal or not legal, thats my experience, im involved with active addiction every day for the last 10 years, i can see how bad it is from both points of view, families and users, and relatives, and myself in recovery no one can say i dont understand!!

OllyK

ALL drugs are dangerous, they all have side effects even if minimal, if for no other reason than they are not the normal compounds running about the body and the liver has to either remove the base compound or a metabolised by product. As these are alien to the liver, they cause un-due stress on the liver. OK the liver is a remarkable organ and can re-generate very well, but sustained use of any drug is not good for you. Just look at the humble paracetamol, don't need very much of that you do yourself serious liver damage.

People overdose either due to stupidity or becoming imune to the effects of the drug, or they acquire an unusually pure hit that results in an overdose or alternatively get a really bad batch that has something nasty in it. That's covers the direct deaths by the actual drug itself, however there are plenty of other deaths though diseases caused by the use of contaminated needles, long term liver and vein damage, deaths to innocents through adicts mugging them to get the money to support their habit.

Just because you don't realise that somebody is an adict doesn't make them fit to drive or perform other complex tasks. Most alchoholics are incredibly good at hiding the fact that they are way over the limit from a visual perspective of them at least.

I agree that our approach to dugs is not working, but I don't see that taking a liberal approach will make things significantly better. Holland still have their problems, different problems admitedly, but problems none the less.

r32

Sorry I think that this Chief Constable is totally bananas.
Legallising drugs is a bad move, I remember seeing a report from some drug user help group that said it would likely create a demand for harder drugs. The people that use it would not a bigger high, as its effects wear off with consumption, its more and more. Plus I agree is the Pilot, Driver, Teacher or who ever on drugs? Who would know?

Brendan Hughes

The more rational argument for legalisation is not based on the "free-for-all" idea, but on the "controlled" idea. (You get a bunch of raving hippies saying they can do what they like to their bodies, but they're a minority). Just like vodka isn't sold to 12-yr-olds, and pilots etc are given serious checks (see my drug-testing at work thread a couple of days ago), and you can/will be nicked for being drunk and disorderly, the legalisation advocated would still limit distribution to few people, with medical checks. The main difference is supposed to be that a) if you can get pure stuff on NHS then why go to the geeza round the corner for cut rubbish, and b) if you have a problem you should have no qualms talking to your doctor or walking into (being carried into?) A&E at the local hospital. The argument is that people are a mess because they're scared to seek help - if they seek help they'll be punished.

The UK already prescribes heroin to a limited number of patients, usually those that don't get on well with methadone treatment. One recent study estimated the annual cost of prescribing heroin as 8k - 10k pa per person, including the price of the drug, building rent, and paying nurses to supervise consumption for the first 3 months (p.37). When you look at the cost of the crime to get the drug over a year, the cost of keeping someone in prison, etc, it's quite surprising.

Supplying heroin to teenagers for recreational use is a big no-no under international law, so it ain't going to happen any time soon. However, once they are addicted, supplying it is then for medical reasons, so it becomes legally acceptable. The people advocating legalisation say why go through the pain of the first step in order to get to the second.

MJW

As has been said before, legalising hard drugs will not affect the demand at all : people who have a likelihood to use them will use them regardless of the legalities.
What *does* need attention is the supply of drugs : control the supply and the profits are removed therefore the criminal element is defeated. IMO legalising hard drugs is the way forward. If people want to get off their heads theyre gonna do it anyway. If quantities and purities are controlled there will probably be less deaths - and if people want to save up their daily doses and OD, then let them get on with it, its their choice.

With regards to drivers/pilots/neurosurgeons, these aren't issues which will suddenly crop up if drugs are legalised, but issues that have been ongoing for many years. IMO, people should be made to make a choice : register as a drug addict and get free gear, but forfeit their drivers/pilots/neurosurgeons licence at the same time.

King RA

Because I am the Magical Wizard of Narnia and know all. Besides KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand) told me this was the case, and he is always right.

MJW

Lay off the smack dude

lmsbman

My thoughts from a couple of months back.

Brendan Hughes

A few more money issues:

As I said, the report reckoned it would be up to £10k pa to fund someone's prescription.

It also reckons that the average addict (yeah, what's average?) spends £16k a year on his habit, of which £13k is stolen.

Think of how much money the police then use to chase these people and their suppliers. Money which would be so much better spent, say, catching speeding drivers

Cost of a daily dose is £65 on the black market, compared to £13 if supplied on NHS.

They're rough figures, but they made me think a bit.

MattW

I don't agree, sending out a message that it is ok to do drugs WILL mean some impressionable people will take drugs when they would not normally have done so.

I have a fairly open mind to this subject, however anything that encourages people to take drugs (especially my children) through sending out a message like this should be discouraged IMO.

Yes, all the arguments pro-legalistaion are valid for those already addicted, how many people who would not normally contemplate drugs would feel the urge if they were legal??

s6pra

Can't you see what he's doing??

He's UK governments greatest asset!!!!!

Now appart from creating stealth tax revenue from motorists, he will allow people to get addicted on this drug and get it taxed just like nicotine is!!!!!

(By the way, nicotine and heroin act the exact same way. Can someone explain to me why a heroin addict and a nicotine addict aren't treated the same way??? They are both drug addicts to me)

Anyway, you got luv'him. The idiot's are crystal clear. Probably the biggest idiot in the UK. Be proud my man. You won the cup!!!!!!!

NACRO

I don't understand the "sending out the worng message" comments that come from the daily mail reader types. Surely the wrong message to send out is that on a matter of principle that there can be no admission of defeat, no debate on the subject despite the fact that we are clearly failing to address the problem in any meaningful way.

Your kids are just as likely to start on heroin if it is legal or illegal- some might argue more likely if it remains illegal.

The point about nicotine and heroin is a valid one, apart from the fact nicotine is more addictive and more harmful than heroin.

OllyK

I am dubious about this for a start, bit like the tabacco companies claiming that advertising doesn't encourage people to smoke.

But surely we are better trying to get people off hard drugs rather than pampering to them. I drink and I smoke, but in some ways I wish they were illegal as I know I would stop if the only way I could get to them was through shady dealings behind some pub. Because they are easily available (and socially acceptable to a degree) and I enjoy them, I carry on.

It is all very well saying it will be controlled, and you can't give heroin to minors, but how many kids under 16 do you see walking about smoking or people under 18 drinking in pubs or clubs? People find a way round the system or there are unscrupulous people out there who will make a few quid and turn a blind eye to the situation.

The supply of alchohol and tabacco is controlled, the supply of CD's is controlled through legal channels, so of course there is no underground element to these? There is no smuggling of beer and **** from France going on, and nobody is flogging pirate CD's, DVD's or Playstation games down your local market either because these are all controlled and it has removed the criminal element as there is no profit in it. Come on pull the other one.

Where are the government going to get this massive supply of heroin from? It is an opiate refined from the poppy. We don't grow them here, but places like Afghanistan and China etc do. So are the government going to start doing trade deals with the criminal cartels, the Triads etc to get the heroin to make it legal over here? Do you think they would risk doing business with a government? Would they trust the UK not to report them to the authorities back in their own country for them to have action taken against them?

Or do we start growing our own poppy fields? That's going to be an interesting security issue, the amount of acreage required to produce enough opium would be massive and how are you going to stop people plundering it?

I'll say this again - I do agree that the current drugs policy is ineffective, I just don't see that legalising it will make a significant difference. We need to do something, but what that should be, I don't know!

lmsbman

Are there any users/ex users out there in scooby land?

How did you first start?

Was it an informed decision on your part, or were you encouraged to give it a go by someone?

There will always be some people who will turn to drugs/alcohol/****/glue etc to deal with their problems. However, from my experience of dealing with users, they were encouraged to start by unscrupulous pushers when they were at a particularly low ebb. They were usually given a free sample for the first few go's until they are hooked. All of them wish they had never started.
If we can force the pushers out of business, then gradually over time, fewer and fewer people will turn to drugs. If we can control the supply, then we can control who gets them. Drug dealers are only in it for the money. If there isn't any money to be made they will stop.

Brendan Hughes

Olly, poppies are grown already to supply the world with morphine, heroin for pharmaceutical use etc. It's a recognised medical substance, not a purely illicit one like MDMA. So yes the government would go to those places, but no, not buy it from the Triads, but buy it from the governments. Just like they do already. They'd just buy more.

Apropos of nothing, you could all read some history books and you will find that the British Government funded its Indian empire mainly by selling opium in the late 1800s, the figures are nothing less than gobsmacking. Don't forget that the reason Hong Kong was British for 100 years is because the Chinese didn't want the nasty addictive substance that screwed up their populace, and refused to buy it from the Brits. So our lovely ancestors sent gunboats and ensured they damn well conformed, as we could see the market potential. Hong Kong was leased to the UK as an outcome of the Opium Wars.

You're absolutely right that the smuggling won't stop. I think the idea is that it would significantly decrease. As for "How many people would start if it was legal", I think this is the ultimate question, for which I haven't seen an answer (yet). It could be sidestepped by saying "Ah, but if we cared for them and there were less nasty pushers involved, it wouldn't matter SO MUCH if they did start." It's not convincing.