Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Murphy Jnr]

So no law, no matter what behaviour it says you must do is ever morally wrong?

Slavery used to be legal, at the time it was also morally acceptable, but now a country that passed such a law would be passing an unjust law wouldn't it? How about apartheid laws, as a more recent example, were those laws themselves not immoral?

 

I doubt morals or legalities entered into the slave trade, more a case of sailing to distant shores and picking up a workforce.

[Cyclone]

Legality was a key point, it wasn't illegal under UK law until 1807, it's not difficult to argue that it was always wrong though, even when it was legal.

[Murphy Jnr]

Legality was a key point, it wasn't illegal under UK law until 1807, it's not difficult to argue that it was always wrong though, even when it was legal.

 

I can't/wont disagree with you there

[Cyclone]

Were those Laws not Policies on segregation and discrimination?

 

Yes, laws for example that made it illegal for a coloured person to sit in a certain part of the bus (that's one famous example isn't it).

We now accept that segregation and discrimination are wrong, so laws that enforced that behaviour must have been wrong as well.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I know someone will enlighten me but is controlled prescription winning favour over rehabilitation now. Is it more cost effective to give them what they need rather than wean them off it. If so is this down to success rate?

 

I was at an association lunch last week (3-line whip ... dragged there by the Missus) and the guest speaker talked about drugs and the 'war on drugs'. He was a (retired) very senior policeman. He argued fluently and persuasively against the current US (I'm in Florida for the winter) laws and the futile 'war against drugs.' He said (and I've no reason to disbelieve him) that many senior policemen felt the way he did, but he is retired and can say what he likes. They are still employed and unless they 'toe the party line' they are likely to find themselves out of a job.

 

If heroin, or cocaine, or ecstasy or even cannabis were all to be 'de-criminalised' (I draw the line at making them legal - there is a significant difference) tomorrow, I wouldn't go out and buy any of them. How many people do you (any of you) know who would?

 

With regards to opiates, the two things aren't exclusive. Rehabilitation is complex, but the methadone program isn't a working solution. It leaves people taking one opiate while still addicted to a 2nd, street heroin. Addicts should have access to diamorphine, clean medical heroin, and then they can go through rehab.

 

So much for methadone being a substitute then or is it's function dulled with the use of street heroine? I know, so many questions

 

I'm not sure that methadone is a substitute. If I have a severe pain in my right big toe and I whack my left thumb with a hammer, then that will take my mind off the pain in the toe (for a while) but it won't cure it.

 

It is only a substitute if the user wishes to come off heroin, in which case it isn't perfect but it serves a purpose. The use of methadone doesn't deal with the addiction to heroin, so if a user is tempted back then it often occurs that they'd end up using both drugs.

 

Drug addiction and rehabilitation is a massively subjective area, because you can't replace drugs and you can't force a person to be clean. The addict has to do the hard part themselves, when they want to be clean more than they want to use. Until that point no replacement therapy can work.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, Chris (and you may well know far more about addiction than I do) but what about the addicts who are 'not yet willing' or those who are physiologically incapable of weaning themselves off a drug?

 

I've met a number of those.

 

I'm addicted to nicotine. (More addictive than heroin.) I smoked cigarettes for many years and I've given up many times. Sometimes 'cold turkey' sometimes through smoking cessation courses + patches. Quitting is easy. Not smoking for 6-9 months is easy. Then it comes back and bites me on the bum!

 

I could use low-dose nicotine patches to ward off the problem, but I choose to smoke a pipe instead. I still get my daily nicotine dose, but because I don't inhale the pipe (and if you ever try smoking one, you will learn why) I do not use 2 square metres of lung tissue to ingest vast quantities of nicotine. - I get a low 'maintenance' dose through the mucous membrane in my mouth. My doctor isn't pleased that I smoke a pipe, but as she says 'It's the lesser of two evils; far better than smoking cigarettes." Pipe smoking is not safe, however!

 

I've dealt with a number of addicts (some of whom were trying to get 'clean' in prison.) I am convinced that society has 'got it wrong'. Severe penalties for possession (using is not illegal, but possession is) haven't worked and there is so much money in the 'industry' penalties against dealers are unlikely ever to be successful.

 

My view is that society should take a more pragmatic approach. There are addicts. There will probably always be addicts ... but we could reduce the number of new addicts if we cut off the supply.

 

There are 3 ways of doing that:

 

1. Destroy the supply at source. It's been tried - It didn't work, it just put the price (and profit for the dealers) up.

 

2. Arrest the dealers. Well, they do arrest some of the dealers - but (like Pokemon) 'you can't get them all.'

 

3. Ruin the market. If you buy ice cream at 30p a cone and you sell ice cream at £1.00 a cone and I move onto your patch and sell it at 5p a cone, how long will you stay in business? The same market rules apply to Class A drugs. The government could buy heroin and cocaine at source (keeps the farmers going) forthe same price that the farmers are paid now. They could ship it (under government control) for far lower costs than the dealers can ship drugs. They would buy it for pennies and could afford to give it away. - The savings on incarceration costs for those poor misfits (they're not willing criminals) who at present go to jail for crimes committed acquiring the money to buy drugs would far outweigh thew cost (to the government) of the drugs.

 

If there are no dealers, how do the next generation of addicts get started?

[Murphy Jnr]

Yes, laws for example that made it illegal for a coloured person to sit in a certain part of the bus (that's one famous example isn't it).

We now accept that segregation and discrimination are wrong, so laws that enforced that behaviour must have been wrong as well.

 

How 'bout this.

The policies that begun the separation of the black/white community should never have begun. This policy was wrong.

The resulting Laws that came into being much later merely underlined the determination of a discriminatory Government to uphold and extend the Policy.

[Murphy Jnr]

@ Rupert Baehr: Obviously if it can result in an addiction to both (a fact i was unaware of) then no, it is no subsitute.

 

Thought provoking post by the way...

[Cyclone]

How 'bout this.

The policies that begun the separation of the black/white community should never have begun. This policy was wrong.

The resulting Laws that came into being much later merely underlined the determination of a discriminatory Government to uphold and extend the Policy.

 

I wouldn't disagree with the statement, but an immoral governmental policy will lead to immoral laws being passed and those laws requiring immoral behaviour (or permitting it).

Banning drugs isn't immoral (it's not moral either though), and breaking the law to use drugs is also not immoral (or moral) IMO.

[Cyclone]

I was at an association lunch last week (3-line whip ... dragged there by the Missus) and the guest speaker talked about drugs and the 'war on drugs'. He was a (retired) very senior policeman. He argued fluently and persuasively against the current US (I'm in Florida for the winter) laws and the futile 'war against drugs.' He said (and I've no reason to disbelieve him) that many senior policemen felt the way he did, but he is retired and can say what he likes. They are still employed and unless they 'toe the party line' they are likely to find themselves out of a job.

 

If heroin, or cocaine, or ecstasy or even cannabis were all to be 'de-criminalised' (I draw the line at making them legal - there is a significant difference) tomorrow, I wouldn't go out and buy any of them. How many people do you (any of you) know who would?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that methadone is a substitute. If I have a severe pain in my right big toe and I whack my left thumb with a hammer, then that will take my mind off the pain in the toe (for a while) but it won't cure it.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, Chris (and you may well know far more about addiction than I do) but what about the addicts who are 'not yet willing' or those who are physiologically incapable of weaning themselves off a drug?

 

I've met a number of those.

 

I'm addicted to nicotine. (More addictive than heroin.) I smoked cigarettes for many years and I've given up many times. Sometimes 'cold turkey' sometimes through smoking cessation courses + patches. Quitting is easy. Not smoking for 6-9 months is easy. Then it comes back and bites me on the bum!

 

I could use low-dose nicotine patches to ward off the problem, but I choose to smoke a pipe instead. I still get my daily nicotine dose, but because I don't inhale the pipe (and if you ever try smoking one, you will learn why) I do not use 2 square metres of lung tissue to ingest vast quantities of nicotine. - I get a low 'maintenance' dose through the mucous membrane in my mouth. My doctor isn't pleased that I smoke a pipe, but as she says 'It's the lesser of two evils; far better than smoking cigarettes." Pipe smoking is not safe, however!

 

I've dealt with a number of addicts (some of whom were trying to get 'clean' in prison.) I am convinced that society has 'got it wrong'. Severe penalties for possession (using is not illegal, but possession is) haven't worked and there is so much money in the 'industry' penalties against dealers are unlikely ever to be successful.

 

My view is that society should take a more pragmatic approach. There are addicts. There will probably always be addicts ... but we could reduce the number of new addicts if we cut off the supply.

 

There are 3 ways of doing that:

 

1. Destroy the supply at source. It's been tried - It didn't work, it just put the price (and profit for the dealers) up.

 

2. Arrest the dealers. Well, they do arrest some of the dealers - but (like Pokemon) 'you can't get them all.'

 

3. Ruin the market. If you buy ice cream at 30p a cone and you sell ice cream at £1.00 a cone and I move onto your patch and sell it at 5p a cone, how long will you stay in business? The same market rules apply to Class A drugs. The government could buy heroin and cocaine at source (keeps the farmers going) forthe same price that the farmers are paid now. They could ship it (under government control) for far lower costs than the dealers can ship drugs. They would buy it for pennies and could afford to give it away. - The savings on incarceration costs for those poor misfits (they're not willing criminals) who at present go to jail for crimes committed acquiring the money to buy drugs would far outweigh thew cost (to the government) of the drugs.

 

If there are no dealers, how do the next generation of addicts get started?

 

All good points, all already made. The only thing I'd disagree with is that some drugs should actually be legalised, whilst others should just be decriminalised and prescribed to addicts. The cut off point should be based on the amount of danger and harm the drug does. If it safer than tobacco or alcohol, it should be legal to buy and use if you wish.

[brokenwings]

i think it should be legal to buy and use if you want, its your money and your life, i have never touched the stuff myself, but just think of all the lovely tax and vat the goverment could earn if they legalised it and sold it in shops.... many many people smoke it, even some elderly.