Is heroin so passe?

[janie48]

I was listening to a dicussion on the radio,about the rising number of children being taken into care recently, partly due to the publicity of the "baby Paul" case. It was mentioned that a very large number of these troubled families are because the parents are heroin addicts who can't cope,apparently more common then those with alcohol problems now.

It does seem though that social deprivation plays a big part.

[fruitisbad]

I was listening to a dicussion on the radio,about the rising number of children being taken into care recently, partly due to the publicity of the "baby Paul" case. It was mentioned that a very large number of these troubled families are because the parents are heroin addicts who can't cope,apparently more common then those with alcohol problems now.

It does seem though that social deprivation plays a big part.

 

It would be interesting to see the chriteria for the children being taken into care. Is it the parents admitting they can't cope? Is it just the fact that the parents take drugs, or is there proof that the children are in danger?

[janie48]

It would be interesting to see the chriteria for the children being taken into care. Is it the parents admitting they can't cope? Is it just the fact that the parents take drugs, or is there proof that the children are in danger?

 

I'm not sure. I think it is more the fact of general neglect,Such as lack of supervision, ignoring school attendance,not providing adequate meals etc.

Not necessarily physical abuse.

I imagine the decision is not made lightly, I don't think it should be.I expect details have been identified by teachers,or other concerned people,then the social workers become involved one thing leading to another.

Its sad to hear about such cases,because the parents may really love their children,its just that they are unable to provide the basic necessities.

Maybe its not just the drugs,or perhaps the addiction has taken such hold of them that the only thing on their mind is the next fix.

[fruitisbad]

I'm not sure. I think it is more the fact of general neglect,Such as lack of supervision, ignoring school attendance,not providing adequate meals etc.

Not necessarily physical abuse.

 

but these are assumptions that you lump upon heroin users. I t could be wuite possible that a child doesn't learn into their late teens that their parents were using whilst they were growing up. I guess this relates more to the point of my original thread. There is thia perception about heroin users that usn;t always true, that;s whay I asked is it just because they tested positive for heroin that the child was taken off them? I know people who have managed habits, had one straight at all times, both cut down etc. always got their kids to school, to the outside world you wouldm't even know they were an addict.

[discodown]

Treating an addict by feeding his addiction makes about as much sense as treating alcoholism by giving the patient a glass of his favourite tipple every day

 

The fact is that the government are copping out

Yes thats the way. Make them suffer. Thats the american way isn't it? Lock them up, punish them, strap them to a gurney and wire them up to the mains or inject them and put them down like a rabid dog.

 

Lets not let little things like empathy, humanity, common sense, the opinion of experts in the field, the scandalous waste of billions that could have been better spent, the lesson that the history of prohibition doesn't work, especially in america, distract us because this Buds for you and the Marlboro man has a message for you, at least he will have when he finishes coughing and hawking up the last piece of blackened lung he has left.

 

He wants to tell you that drugs are bad. Not all drugs, some drugs are good, the taxed drugs that governments push are ok, the ones that your kids go out and hammer every weekend are fine. But other drugs they're bad - even ones that grow naturally, that God himself put there, God was wrong and we're right.

 

Suck down on your Coors while we explain why and light up a Camel because you'll be shocked at how bad the reefer madness is and even more shocked at the draconian Rave Act which almost killed clubbing in america but didn't make it one bit safer. In fact its legislation like this which causes people to invent really nasty stuff and call it "plant food" so drugs like ecstasy which have at least been studied and are safe. Not really safe, no drug is safe, here its Miller time and you must have Red Apple, but safer than booze are removed from the system while new drugs are introduced that haven't been studied but are legal for a while so people are free to get high for a while.

 

Free to take any nasty crap from a lab that they don't know what will do to them so they can avoid the law which comes down on them with no mercy. Worse than if they were murderers or rapists. In Texas in the 90's the state voted against a $750m state spend on new schools but for a $1bn state spend on new prisons. An american convicted of drug offences can be denied all type of welfare for the rest of their lives at the governments discretion no matter what the offence was. So get caught with a joint or a kilo of coke and you can expect the same treatment. America has a bigger prison population than all but New York, over 6 million americans currently in prison. Mostly for innocuous drug offences

 

Free - because of puritanical america's obsession with a war on drugs they are losing they can't possibly win - to exercise their right to choose what they want to do to their conscienceness for a little while. While the right hypocritically chugs beer and smokes and constantly comes up with more and more ludicrous laws concerning peoples rights.

 

Face it america is slowly spitting on the constitution and tearing it up day by day and you are supporting it. Land of the free? Really? America's drugs policy is killing its youth. Enslaving south america. Spiralling inward on its own constitution and imprisoning itself in debt and all because its so insular, so conservative, so right wing. So much money wasted, so many deaths, so many people in jail with their lives ruined and has any progress been made whatsoever?

 

Nope. America is still awash with drugs and every red cent goes into the black economy and you still support prohibition? Why?

[Harleyman]

Yes thats the way. Make them suffer. Thats the american way isn't it? Lock them up, punish them, strap them to a gurney and wire them up to the mains or inject them and put them down like a rabid dog.

 

Lets not let little things like empathy, humanity, common sense, the opinion of experts in the field, the scandalous waste of billions that could have been better spent, the lesson that the history of prohibition doesn't work, especially in america, distract us because this Buds for you and the Marlboro man has a message for you, at least he will have when he finishes coughing and hawking up the last piece of blackened lung he has left.

 

He wants to tell you that drugs are bad. Not all drugs, some drugs are good, the taxed drugs that governments push are ok, the ones that your kids go out and hammer every weekend are fine. But other drugs they're bad - even ones that grow naturally, that God himself put there, God was wrong and we're right.

 

Suck down on your Coors while we explain why and light up a Camel because you'll be shocked at how bad the reefer madness is and even more shocked at the draconian Rave Act which almost killed clubbing in america but didn't make it one bit safer. In fact its legislation like this which causes people to invent really nasty stuff and call it "plant food" so drugs like ecstasy which have at least been studied and are safe. Not really safe, no drug is safe, here its Miller time and you must have Red Apple, but safer than booze are removed from the system while new drugs are introduced that haven't been studied but are legal for a while so people are free to get high for a while.

 

Free to take any nasty crap from a lab that they don't know what will do to them so they can avoid the law which comes down on them with no mercy. Worse than if they were murderers or rapists. In Texas in the 90's the state voted against a $750m state spend on new schools but for a $1bn state spend on new prisons. An american convicted of drug offences can be denied all type of welfare for the rest of their lives at the governments discretion no matter what the offence was. So get caught with a joint or a kilo of coke and you can expect the same treatment. America has a bigger prison population than all but New York, over 6 million americans currently in prison. Mostly for innocuous drug offences

 

Free - because of puritanical america's obsession with a war on drugs they are losing they can't possibly win - to exercise their right to choose what they want to do to their conscienceness for a little while. While the right hypocritically chugs beer and smokes and constantly comes up with more and more ludicrous laws concerning peoples rights.

 

Face it america is slowly spitting on the constitution and tearing it up day by day and you are supporting it. Land of the free? Really? America's drugs policy is killing its youth. Enslaving south america. Spiralling inward on its own constitution and imprisoning itself in debt and all because its so insular, so conservative, so right wing. So much money wasted, so many deaths, so many people in jail with their lives ruined and has any progress been made whatsoever?

 

Nope. America is still awash with drugs and every red cent goes into the black economy and you still support prohibition? Why?

 

 

For all the above mostly innacurate hogwash teenage drunkeness is far more rife in Britain with it's smaller population and council estates full of unemployed work shy layabouts abusing the benefits of a generous welfare state. Teenage pregnancy and single mothers nothing new. Many girls become pregnant intentionally just to qualify for a council flat and then there's the inner cities full of disenchanted Muslim immigrants which as is widely known a breeding ground for terrorism.

Tobacco use far more prevalent also. When I go over there I see teenagers smoking everywhere it's allowed and petty hooliganism very common.

 

Britain is no shining example of what a sound very liveable society should be. If I were seeking such a place I'd go live in Norway.

[Harleyman]

If giving him clean alcohol is cheaper than sending an alcoholic out to beg and steal for gut-rot alcohol that will ultimately cost us again - then it is eminently sensible. It's so sensible you've got no argument against it.

 

Prohibition doesn't work.

 

 

Can you explain how? I'd say nothing changes my genetic make-up. I could pour heroin on my cornflakes for 10 years and my genome wouldn't vary in the slightest. I'm open to being wrong.

 

What on earth is "clean alcohol" ? O'Doules non alcoholic beer?

 

Clean, dirty, whatever, you are just feeding an addict something that is deterimental to his health.

 

I think I've figured out the real truth about all this enlightened "cure em" programs you lot espouse.

 

It's a way of copping out of the whole issue.

 

"We know we'll never cure em... all just pure BS. Just feed em a bit of what they crave for every day and then send em on their merry way. Keeps em quiet and docile and we dont have to pay the coppers overtime from our already overstrained city budgets"

 

That's what it's all about so please dont call these programs a way to cure the hopelessly addicted. The ultimate cure of course is when death finally occurs

[janie48]

but these are assumptions that you lump upon heroin users. I t could be wuite possible that a child doesn't learn into their late teens that their parents were using whilst they were growing up. I guess this relates more to the point of my original thread. There is thia perception about heroin users that usn;t always true, that;s whay I asked is it just because they tested positive for heroin that the child was taken off them? I know people who have managed habits, had one straight at all times, both cut down etc. always got their kids to school, to the outside world you wouldm't even know they were an addict.

 

I wasn't really generalising,although it might have appeared that way,in fact i was referring to something i had heard in the media.I'm not lumping them all together.You remarked about the criteria that would warrent the children of some parents being put into care,and i said i wasn't sure,and i did go on to make an assumption.

 

Its probable though that my assumption was influenced to some extent by what i have heard but i do prefer to look at the bigger picture rather then base an opinion on the experience of some,and i don't doubt there are those who manage without problems,but in the media its the ones with problems we hear about.

[onewheeldave]

What on earth is "clean alcohol" ? O'Doules non alcoholic beer?

 

Clean, dirty, whatever, you are just feeding an addict something that is deterimental to his health.

 

I think I've figured out the real truth about all this enlightened "cure em" programs you lot espouse.

 

It's a way of copping out of the whole issue.

 

"We know we'll never cure em... all just pure BS. Just feed em a bit of what they crave for every day and then send em on their merry way. Keeps em quiet and docile and we dont have to pay the coppers overtime from our already overstrained city budgets"

 

That's what it's all about so please dont call these programs a way to cure the hopelessly addicted. The ultimate cure of course is when death finally occurs

 

"clean alcohol" would be the regulated stuff sold in bars, supermarkets etc- stuff that can be used without wrecking health as long as it's consumed sensibly in moderation.

 

As opposed to the unregulated, toxin laden alcohol sold by criminals in places where alcohol is prohibited.

 

Similarly, heroin obtained in the UK is unregulated and toxin laden- that's why most heroin users have health issues- if heroin was regulated like alcohol currently is, then those health issues wouldn't occur- in fact, clean heroin is actually less damaging to health than clean alcohol.

[ferno]

Teenage pregnancy and single mothers nothing new. Many girls become pregnant intentionally just to qualify for a council flat .

 

 

Like most of your contributions, this is complete rubbish. Girls under 16 who have babies don't get any benefits, it goes directly to their families. Just 2% of single mums are teenagers. The myth that teenagers get pregnant to get a flat is the kind of ignorant nonsense peddled by people who know nothing about the subject, but well done for crow-barring your racist remarks about muslims into a debate about heroin. Classy.