A sensible discussion about current drugs policy.

[*_ash_*]

It shouldn't cost a penny to keep criminals in jail, hard labour to pay for their keep should be the order of the day, how many police officers will go if drugs are legalised the answer is none because they will be free to combat other crimes

It does cost though. A lot. Do you think they should be there for taking and possessing drugs, even if they don't steal to get them?

 

For example, do you think if my friend buys some Ecstasy and gives me one, that he should go to jail for 7 years at a cost to the taxpayer of £245,000(+legal costs+police+CPS costs)?

 

The addict chooses to rob to feed their habit, programmes are already their to help them kick it.

What about drugs that aren't addictive? I've mentioned one, above ^^

 

Class A drug doesn't distinguish between Heroin and Ecstasy. What if they aren't stealing to buy their drug?

I'm sick ofpeople on here making excuses for druggies even to the point of claiming that it is the normal thing to do.

There are five graduation photos on my living room wall, none of my children have taken illegal drugs especialy not at unversity where some posters on her imply that it was the normal thing to do, (if you can believe these posters).

People choose to be on the habit, what I'm asking is how can they get on the habit if and when these drugs are legalised.

 

'normal thing to do'. You would have to define that. Stats show how many people try / have taken illegal drugs. So where do they turn to get them? Dealers. Or friends, who know dealers. Or friend of friend who know dealers.

[*_ash_*]

So why if as you imply the only difference is that you can buy one over the counter and the other requires robbery because it is so expensive yet has the same effect don't they stick to cigarettes?

 

Here is a common thing that people misunderstand:

 

1. People addicted to Heroin most commonly started originally on smaller drugs. (cigs/smoke/whizz etc).

 

2. Most people on small drugs (cigs/smoke/whizz etc) don't turn to Heroin.

[sandie]

Economics, as well as medicine, supports decriminalisation.

 

Why do criminals supply drugs?

 

To make money.

 

It's in their interests to create as many addicts as they can, so they "push" drugs onto non-addicts as well.

 

The government tries to stamp out the drugs trade by making it illegal and arresting criminals, but the more success law enforcement has, the higher the street price of the drugs goes. This means existing addicts have to commit more crime to get the money to feed their habit. It also makes it more attractive for criminals to be in the "business".

 

So it's better to decriminalise, and to supply registered addicts with drugs for free on the NHS. These drugs are very cheap when legally sourced, so this would cost a lot less than the crime it prevents and the law enforcement that becomes unnecessary. There will no longer be any profit to be made by criminals, so the entire illegal trade in the UK will wither away. If the whole world followed suit, terrorist organisations that fund themselves by growing these drugs would also be deprived of the money that they use to buy arms.

 

Everybody wins, except for drugs gangs and the Taliban. What is there to lose?

 

Take grass.

 

 

 

Say a million people buy a henry a week at £25. That's £25 million a week that could be taxed, plus the costs of the cops raiding South Vietnamese gangs who rent houses and install cannabis farms. Plus the cost to the courts to process the men of straw who operate them, the cost to the prisons, the landlords etc.

 

The government are turning their back on massive fiscal benefits and causing harm and criminality at the same time.

 

The whole thing's a dog's breakfast.

 

What a load of rubbish there are people who are suffering Cancer and can not get the drugs they need. There are people who are waiting for Hip and Shoulder replacements, Those who are waiting for transplants to stay alive and you want to give additcs their fix for free.

NHS is for those through no fault of their own are suffering not for those who choose to become addicted to drugs. The NHS is short of money and can not cope with the demand of those that are in need who have worked all their life, paid their taxes and you have the brass neck to say give drugs free to addicts on the NHS.

Do you live in the real world, because if that is your world I dont want to be a part of it

[MrMondo]

What a load of rubbish there are people who are suffering Cancer and can not get the drugs they need. There are people who are waiting for Hip and Shoulder replacements, Those who are waiting for transplants to stay alive and you want to give additcs their fix for free.

NHS is for those through no fault of their own are suffering not for those who choose to become addicted to drugs. The NHS is short of money and can not cope with the demand of those that are in need who have worked all their life, paid their taxes and you have the brass neck to say give drugs free to addicts on the NHS.

Do you live in the real world, because if that is your world I dont want to be a part of it

 

What's the difference between giving Heroin adicts Heroin for free, or methadone, which is what adicts get for free on the NHS now?

 

They both cost about the same. THe only difference is that methadone is legal & controlled by the government. What would the difference be???

[Bassman62]

In my view, his addiction is no different to an unhappy, middle aged housewife addicted to Prozac and nobody would protest at NHS help for that.

With one big difference, which is why they both started on their particular drugs.

One was prescribed for need by a qualified Doctor, the other took it for kicks.

[Bassman62]

What a load of rubbish there are people who are suffering Cancer and can not get the drugs they need. There are people who are waiting for Hip and Shoulder replacements, Those who are waiting for transplants to stay alive and you want to give additcs their fix for free.

NHS is for those through no fault of their own are suffering not for those who choose to become addicted to drugs. The NHS is short of money and can not cope with the demand of those that are in need who have worked all their life, paid their taxes and you have the brass neck to say give drugs free to addicts on the NHS.

Do you live in the real world, because if that is your world I dont want to be a part of it

 

Very well put, it's really good to see people not being afraid to face the wrath of a certain element here.

The drugs that this thread is about and the dependency/addiction they lead to stem from what can be called a self inflicted problem, whereas someone suffering from one of the forms of cancer where drugs are witheld due to cost has no control over the onset of the ilness yet they who as you said could have paid into the system all their lives are having to sit there in pain whilst addicts/junkies get their fixes free, but not only that still go out and top up as well.

[Bassman62]

What's the difference between giving Heroin adicts Heroin for free, or methadone, which is what adicts get for free on the NHS now?

 

They both cost about the same. THe only difference is that methadone is legal & controlled by the government. What would the difference be???

The big difference is that deserving cases, ie those who've contributed to the system and society are finding that treatment to them is regularly held back on financial grounds.

Whilst self abusers are an unecessesary burden on the NHS and should be at the back of the queue.

[Cozmo]

The big difference is that deserving cases, ie those who've contributed to the system and society are finding that treatment to them is regularly held back on financial grounds.

Whilst self abusers are an unecessesary burden on the NHS and should be at the back of the queue.

 

Your missing the point though Bassman62, its not about deserving or undeserving. The argument is whether prescribed heroin should be discussed for addicts who are engaged with services as opposed to Methadone prescriptions.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

 

 

The Swiss, for example, in 1997 reported on a three-year experiment in which they had prescribed heroin to 1,146 addicts in 18 locations. They found: "Individual health and social circumstances improved drastically ... The improvements in physical health which occurred during treatment with heroin proved to be stable over the course of one and a half years and in some cases continued to increase (in physical terms, this relates especially to general and nutritional status and injection- related skin diseases) ... In the psychiatric area, depressive states in particular continued to regress, as well as anxiety states and delusional disorders ... The mortality of untreated patients is markedly higher." They also reported dramatic improvements in the social stability of the addicts, including a steep fall in crime.

 

There are equally impressive results from similar projects in Holland and Luxembourg and Naples and, also, in Britain. In Liverpool, during the early 1990s, Dr John Marks used a special Home Office licence to prescribe heroin to addicts. Police reported a 96% reduction in acquisitive crime among a group of addict patients. Deaths from locally acquired HIV infection and drug-related overdoses fell to zero. But, under intense pressure from the government, the project was closed down. In its 10 years' work, not one of its patients had died. In the first two years after it was closed, 41 died.

 

This is an ongoing debate within the drugs service field and one that a great deal of drug workers see as being beneficial to individuals and society at large. The only problem is that policy is a top down concern and it would take a VERY brave government to implement this.

[hard2miss]

Your missing the point though Bassman62, its not about deserving or undeserving. The argument is whether prescribed heroin should be discussed for addicts who are engaged with services as opposed to Methadone prescriptions.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

 

 

The Swiss, for example, in 1997 reported on a three-year experiment in which they had prescribed heroin to 1,146 addicts in 18 locations. They found: "Individual health and social circumstances improved drastically ... The improvements in physical health which occurred during treatment with heroin proved to be stable over the course of one and a half years and in some cases continued to increase (in physical terms, this relates especially to general and nutritional status and injection- related skin diseases) ... In the psychiatric area, depressive states in particular continued to regress, as well as anxiety states and delusional disorders ... The mortality of untreated patients is markedly higher." They also reported dramatic improvements in the social stability of the addicts, including a steep fall in crime.

 

There are equally impressive results from similar projects in Holland and Luxembourg and Naples and, also, in Britain. In Liverpool, during the early 1990s, Dr John Marks used a special Home Office licence to prescribe heroin to addicts. Police reported a 96% reduction in acquisitive crime among a group of addict patients. Deaths from locally acquired HIV infection and drug-related overdoses fell to zero. But, under intense pressure from the government, the project was closed down. In its 10 years' work, not one of its patients had died. In the first two years after it was closed, 41 died.

 

This is an ongoing debate within the drugs service field and one that a great deal of drug workers see as being beneficial to individuals and society at large. The only problem is that policy is a top down concern and it would take a VERY brave government to implement this.

Like the US we don't want to take away crime committed on the average joe, while ever people are looking over their shoulder for one and other in fear their eyes are taken off what the establishment is doing.

[Chris_Sleeps]

What a load of rubbish there are people who are suffering Cancer and can not get the drugs they need. There are people who are waiting for Hip and Shoulder replacements, Those who are waiting for transplants to stay alive and you want to give additcs their fix for free.

NHS is for those through no fault of their own are suffering not for those who choose to become addicted to drugs.

Firstly, some silly and pointless comparisons in your post. People are waiting for organ transplants due to lack of donors, not a lack of money. Hip and shoulder replacements are performed every day, and a waiting list is due to technical demands like theatre time and surgeons available. You're trying to be emotive with no common sense behind what you say.

 

Secondly, the cancer drugs that are rejected are some of the most expensive drugs the NHS buys, and often they are rejected because of a cost-to-life ratio. Ie, they cost a lot and rarely serve much purpose than the patient lives another month. I think it's terrible these drugs are not given to patients, but it isn't relevant to legalising drugs.

 

Opiates are already available from the state, so cost isn't even relevant. If we were to discuss cost then we'd ask why society gives an addict methadone when he still buys diamorphine (heroin). Why not just give him the diamorphine?