Is heroin so passe?

[spooky3]

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for not trying to put the scum bag drug dealers out of business.

 

It's not an excuse, it's a valid point that you again are trying to avoid because it doesn't play well into your idealist picture!

[spooky3]

What about countries like Singapore wher I understand there is hardly any drug problem ?

 

I was offered everything in Singapore!

[JFKvsNixon]

To you it's a no brainer...

 

Care to explain, or was that meant as an insult?

[JFKvsNixon]

It's not an excuse, it's a valid point that you again are trying to avoid because it doesn't play well into your idealist picture!

 

Do I really have to argue against your position that we shouldn't shut down the scum bag drug dealers 'cause we don't know what they'll move on to next? Do you really believe that that's a valid argument?

[ferno]

I think one of the reasons they are illegal is because some people will get addicted on them and it is to try and protect these people.

 

When heroin was legal and routinely prescribed by doctors in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts.

 

Now, heroin's illegal and we have nearly a third of a million addicts.

 

 

According to Dr James Mills, a historian who has traced drug use through the 20th century, they tended to be doctors or middle-class patients who could afford to sustain a habit.

 

 

"In the 1930s, it was really the well-to-do crowd. The working classes might have a bit of heroin in the medicine prescribed to them but it wouldn't be enough to form a dependency," says Dr Mills.

 

 

Clearly, the fact heroin was legal and widely prescribed for common ailments such as coughs, colds and diarrhoea, as well as a pain killer, had not led to the sort of widespread dependency that opponents of legalisation fear it would do if legalised today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

[harvey19]

Just as an aside if drugs were legalised presumably the police force, court system, probation and prison services could be reduced.

[spooky3]

Care to explain, or was that meant as an insult?

 

No insult. It makes sense to you, but when have you ever called a heroin addict sensible. There's loads of reasons addicts would avoid those places...

[spooky3]

Do I really have to argue against your position that we shouldn't shut down the scum bag drug dealers 'cause we don't know what they'll move on to next? Do you really believe that that's a valid argument?

 

It's obvious that they would move on to something else, are you really denying that!

[harvey19]

When heroin was legal and routinely prescribed by doctors in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts.

 

Now, heroin's illegal and we have nearly a third of a million addicts.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

 

The conclusion is that dealers have introduced people to drugs for financial gain.

The second conclusion is that policing of the problem has failed.

The question is, why has there been such a failure to control this illegality.

[spooky3]

When heroin was legal and routinely prescribed by doctors in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts.

 

Now, heroin's illegal and we have nearly a third of a million addicts.

 

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

 

Read the whole article (or just the next line), the author indicated disbelief as I pointed out before.