A sensible discussion about current drugs policy.

[spindrift]

Interestingly, when the Daily Mail covered this story, the comments were pretty much pro-legalisation and prescription:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303590/Prof-Ian-Gilmore-Legalise-heroin-cocaine-cut-crime-improve-health.html#comments

 

A young man has just died here from taking a so called legal high. There was no control whatsoever over what was in that product.

 

That is part of the problem.

 

There are no controls over what goes in to these drugs, legal or otherwise. People think legalising drugs means no control. When actually it means the opposite. Drugs would be subject to all the controls and regulations as any other product.

 

Making it safer for users.

 

 

People will condemn this idea, saying you are giving the message that it is ok to take drugs.

 

But you have to realise what the reality of drugs is. People will always take drugs and no amount of prohibition laws or tougher sentences will ever ever change this. Our drug policy does not work, prohibition does not work and never will.

 

 

It's time to be really honest about this, listen to what the scientists and Police have been telling us for a long time. To control drugs we must legalise them and take the criminals out of the equation.

 

 

- Phil, Isle of Wight, 19/8/2010 16:47

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303590/Prof-Ian-Gilmore-Legalise-heroin-cocaine-cut-crime-improve-health.html#comments#ixzz0xhqVQ0o5

[Bassman62]

It seems that many people here are more concerned with doing the dealers out of business and saving the health service this and that. There seems to be a lack of willingness to discuss effects on users and consequences.

 

So where are these legal drugs going to be acquired?

How long before the need to take more takes hold?

How long before someone becomes hooked?

Should the health service have to pay for self harmers?

Won't people with genuine problems that are not self inflicted suffer?

 

 

The question that nobody seems to want to answer is what do you get out of taking heroin, cocain, ecstacy, and all the other illegal drugs that users take (please no "for recreational reasons").

[Bassman62]

Interestingly, when the Daily Mail covered this story, the comments were pretty much pro-legalisation and prescription:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303590/Prof-Ian-Gilmore-Legalise-heroin-cocaine-cut-crime-improve-health.html#comments

 

A young man has just died here from taking a so called legal high. There was no control whatsoever over what was in that product.

 

That is part of the problem.

 

There are no controls over what goes in to these drugs, legal or otherwise. People think legalising drugs means no control. When actually it means the opposite. Drugs would be subject to all the controls and regulations as any other product.

 

Making it safer for users.

 

 

People will condemn this idea, saying you are giving the message that it is ok to take drugs.

 

But you have to realise what the reality of drugs is. People will always take drugs and no amount of prohibition laws or tougher sentences will ever ever change this. Our drug policy does not work, prohibition does not work and never will.

 

 

It's time to be really honest about this, listen to what the scientists and Police have been telling us for a long time. To control drugs we must legalise them and take the criminals out of the equation.

 

 

- Phil, Isle of Wight, 19/8/2010 16:47

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303590/Prof-Ian-Gilmore-Legalise-heroin-cocaine-cut-crime-improve-health.html#comments#ixzz0xhqVQ0o5

 

Once again the naive attitude that by legalising these current illegal drugs the country will be awash with only sensible users.

[spindrift]

Those of us that use our God-given braincells and call for an end to the "War on Drugs" are pretty much arguing against a brick wall. The anti-drug campaigners are the dopiest individuals I've ever come across. They lack all sense of reason and logic. They genuinely believe that imprisoning everybody who dares use something that's been used since the early beginnings of civilization is reasonable. Their horrific vision of the modern world is nothing more than a control-obsessed nightmare. It's no wonder most of us choose to escape their wrath and terror, instead choosing to explore the infinite reaches of consciousness known as pure love.

[spindrift]

I guess the NHS staff see as much as anyone how harmful is our heroin problem at the moment.

 

"I do believe in heroin prescribing,"

 

said General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Dr Peter Carter, speaking in a personal capacity after a debate on the issue at the RCN's annual conference.

 

"The fact is heroin is very addictive. People who are addicted so often resort to crime, to steal to buy the heroin.

 

"It obviates the need for them to steal. It might take a few years but I think people will understand," he said. "If you are going to get people off heroin then in the initial stages we have to have proper heroin prescribing services.

 

"Critics say you are encouraging drug addiction but the reality is that these people are addicts and they are going to do it anyway."

 

 

 

http://www.nursinginpractice.com/default.asp?page=article.display&article.id=21196

 

"I absolutely agree.

 

I have some experience as a custody nurse and the social implications of drug addiction are enormous, and are well documented by Helen Fryer below.

 

Most burglaries, muggings and petty crime are carried out by addicts desperate for their next fix. The police have estimated that without drugs, 66% of all crime would not be committed in the first place.

 

 

Whilst we do comparatively little to stop the

recruitment of children at the school gates, who are lured by the 'glamour' of risk in dabbling with drugs, I feel we are duty bound to do as much as a society as we can to minimise the harm these youngsters will face in the future.

 

 

I have not met an addict yet who isn't desperate to stop, who regrets taking those first drugs and who is miserable to the point of hopelessness.

 

These are our young people!

 

 

Drug abuse affects all classes, not just the poor; yet it is the poor who are least likely to be able to book into expensive, private rehab - a reserve only for the rich and famous. A fully supported programme with GPs, specialist nurses, the family and the addict is a realistic option that can only benefit society as a whole"

 

 

- Name and address supplied

[sharrowman]

The question that nobody seems to want to answer is what do you get out of taking heroin, cocain, ecstacy, and all the other illegal drugs that users take (please no "for recreational reasons").

 

 

 

Try http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp_front.shtml and you can look up reports of users experiences of all manner of drugs.

[Bassman62]

I have not met an addict yet who isn't desperate to stop, who regrets taking those first drugs and who is miserable to the point of hopelessness.

These are our young people!

 

Wow! So let's make drugs more easily available to all and sundry thus creating yet more addicts, is that the answer?

 

Drug abuse affects all classes, not just the poor; yet it is the poor who are least likely to be able to book into expensive, private rehab - a reserve only for the rich and famous. A fully supported programme with GPs, specialist nurses, the family and the addict is a realistic option that can only benefit society as a whole"

 

And of course this whole programme will cost the tax payer nothing due to it being paid for by the imaginery tax that the sale of these so called PC named "recreational" drugs will generate.

We can't afford to look after the current population of sick and elderly let alone a country full of legal self abusers

[spindrift]

Wow! So let's make drugs more easily available to all and sundry thus creating yet more addicts, is that the answer?

 

 

 

And of course this whole programme will cost the tax payer nothing due to it being paid for by the imaginery tax that the sale of these so called PC named "recreational" drugs will generate.

We can't afford to look after the current population of sick and elderly let alone a country full of legal self abusers

 

 

Had you read either this thread or the one shut down because of your abuse you would realise that prescribed heroin results in fewer users of the drug.

 

The evidence has been posted on this thread too, so please don't post on a thread you haven't bothered to read.

 

And the drugs won't be sold at all, that's something else you've plucked from thin air.

 

Why do you keep posting when you plainly lack the ability to understand the proposal?

[spindrift]

There are strong reasons to support the practice of prescribing heroin to drug misusers, researchers claim.

 

A University of Amsterdam team says the treatment is cost-effective, even though it is expensive.

 

The British Medical Journal study found the cost to health services was offset by savings linked to crime reduction.

 

The Dutch scientists looked at 430 heroin addicts who were taking part in methadone maintenance programmes in six cities in the Netherlands.

 

Before they took part in the study, they had frequently engaged in illegal activities to acquire money or drugs.

 

The addicts were given either methadone plus heroin, or methadone alone.

 

The patients were then assessed after a year of treatment.

 

Those given the combination treatment reported a better quality of life, compared to those given methadone alone.

 

And although the costs of co-prescription were found to be considerably higher, they were offset by lower policing costs and reduced costs of crime against property because addicts were not breaking the law to fund their habit.

 

The average total net savings amounted to 12,793 euros (about £8,600) per patient per year.

 

http://www.opioids.com/heroin/cost-cutter.html

[Bassman62]

The average total net savings amounted to 12,793 euros (about £8,600) per patient per year.

But what was the actual cost per patient?

Who pays, is it the clean living person who's just been denied a cancer drug due to cost?

Is it the parents of a baby who have to raise fund for a life saving operation in the US?