mj.scuba Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If it was legalised, I don't think dealers would exist at all. As stated previously it would hard for a criminal gang to undercut mass production of a product. And for those that didn't want to pay the standard rates, will indeed look to find cheaper methods as also argued prior. Does it mean people will commit more crime to get cannabis, when really they can just stick one next to the tomato plants in the back garden, and it won't really cost much at all, maybe a couple of seeds, that you can pick up now from the local pet store, it's the cannabis seeds in bird food that make a bird sing. Or so I was told. I don't think it will be the cost of drugs that keep them in business. Even if it's legalised, it will still be tabboo. People won't be introduced to drug taking by going to their local chemist to to pick what drug to try like a sweet shop, more likely they will still come into first contact with drugs from a dealer, (who might have obtained it legally?). There might need to be a law saying any drug obtained by legal methods may not be resold or redistributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 The heroin is administered on site, in a clinic, nobody walks out with heroin. Users get a clean dose and go back to living a relatively normal, productive life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The heroin is administered on site, in a clinic, nobody walks out with heroin. Users get a clean dose and go back to living a relatively normal, productive life. Why? We've already established alcohol is a bigger killer, why can't we get free booze. The options should be FREE to get CLEAN or self finance. Cannabis apart - why would anyone in the depths of despair wish to remain in the situation if a viable alternative was offered - like it is in Portugal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Tobacco being the one that fails it on that, but then we were talking in comparison to illegal drugs. Alcohol UK users: 40 million UK deaths/year: 40,000 Rate 0.001 Solvents UK users: 30,000 UK deaths/year: 50-60 Rate 0.002 Heroin UK users: 300,000 UK deaths/year: 700 Rate 0.0023 Benzodiazepines UK users: 100,000 UK deaths/year: 406 Rate 0.004 Street methadone UK users: 33,000 illegal users UK deaths/year: 295 Rate 0.008 Pedantry aside, I don't think the harm that people want to do to themselves is really the issue is it. It's harm to others. It's also much more complex than some death statistics. Alcohol might be bad in excess, but it also has known health benefits in moderation. Studies seem to be suggesting that the current recommended units have been set way too low, and somebody needs to "drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller". The recorded deaths will also include deaths due to drink driving, because our system is well established to record such incidents. It is not yet adequate to record deaths due to driving under the influence of other drugs. Ultimately, the issue is not which drug is worse, it's does prohibiting them create more or less harm. I care little if somebody chooses to harm themselves through taking drugs or hand gliding, but I do care if what they choose to do presents a risk to others. Personally I would prefer a society where my chances of being robbed to pay for a fix are reduced, or the chances of my daughter being given a free trial of drugs are reduced. I can only see this happening if drugs are legalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentbob Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I must be missing something, alcohol deaths, as far as i can tell, are more than all the other deaths added together? Only because there are 40million users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Only because there are 40million users. Look at the deaths per user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 People won't be introduced to drug taking by going to their local chemist to to pick what drug to try like a sweet shop, more likely they will still come into first contact with drugs from a dealer In the context of opiates; few people go out into the world with the aim of taking heroin. A lot of the time it is pushed by drug dealers who can see the profit in addiction. People capitulate to this pushing for many reasons, but only a small small minority will actively choose heroin as a drug they would like to try. What desire would a dealer have to create an addiction when the state will always undercut them? They'd make a bit of small change at a large risk, and if someone became addicted they could go back to the state and receive what they need for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I must be missing something, alcohol deaths, as far as i can tell, are more than all the other deaths added together? Tobacco has a higher number of deaths as you have already pointed out. All I'm trying (poorly as usual) to point out is: 1. It's not the number of deaths that's a measure of risk, but the rate of deaths. This puts street methadone as the most dangerous. 2. It more complex than that. Some of the drugs may even have health benefits in moderation. Cannabis is thought to, and alcohol certainly is. From the article, one study "found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain". 3. It's even more complex than that. The statistics will record deaths from drink driving incidents as deaths due to alcohol, but will currently be ignoring those due to other drugs. 4. It's not even relevant to the debate is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentbob Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Look at the deaths per user. The rate has already been published alcohol 1 in a 1000 heroin 2.3 in a 1000 as quisquose has just stated, it's always more complex than that. But based on the information available it is obvious to anyone that heroin is more dangerous than alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 But based on the information available it is obvious to anyone that heroin is more dangerous than alcohol. One could argue not really. Opiates are wonderful things. Doctors can give morphine to a patient and the chances of him dying are minute. The nature of heroin addiction is that people follow their own self-dosage to feed an ever growing monkey on their back. It is addiction and overdose that are dangerous, just like with alcohol. The difference being heroin creates addiction a little quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.