janie48 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The worst of the side-effects involve mild constipation. Don't underestimate the side effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You claimed I said heroin ahould be avilable in supermarkets to anyone. This is not true, I never said anything of the kind, you're making stuff up. Where have I ever mentioned a supermarket in this thread, you are the one making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 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. So by stating an obvious fact that a small minority of Muslims have been associated with terrorism is racist? Dont play the race card stuff with me. It wont work Truth to tell the Muslims have a lot to recommend their culture and way of life and in this case when it comes to drug addiction it's not part of their scene. That applies to Hindus, Bhuddists and church going Christians also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 How? People on prescribed heroin can work, contribute to society and live peaceful, crime-free lives. The worst of the side-effects involve mild constipation. Not something you suffer from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 My first sentence was making a comparison with other activities yo referred to as addictive. Alcohol abuse needs to be policed better. When I was younger one could be arrested for being drunk in the street and the police regularly visited pubs. Unbeleivable the change in behaviour over the years and irresposible attitudes. Whilst I am at it I would ban the sale of all tobacco products because of the damage they can do to a persons health. You may be correct that heroin is less damaging to a person's health but it is the severe addictiveness that is the problem. Do you think that banning tobacco would prevent kids from starting smoking, do you think it'd stop many people smoking? Or do you think more would start without any age restrictions on sales? How about if you add in some alarmist propaganda about how their first cigarette will kill them/get them addicted/make them start stealing, I mean really alarmist stuff that kids can see are lies straight away, like they did with other drugs? They would be smoking a less controlled product that could cause them even more harm. They would not pay any tax to fund their treatment, instead they'd be funding criminals to commit more crime. Banning drugs doesn't work. The law is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Do you think that banning tobacco would prevent kids from starting smoking, do you think it'd stop many people smoking? Or do you think more would start without any age restrictions on sales? How about if you add in some alarmist propaganda about how their first cigarette will kill them/get them addicted/make them start stealing, I mean really alarmist stuff that kids can see are lies straight away, like they did with other drugs? They would be smoking a less controlled product that could cause them even more harm. They would not pay any tax to fund their treatment, instead they'd be funding criminals to commit more crime. Banning drugs doesn't work. The law is the problem. I would take anyone who disagreed with banning smokoing to visit those affected by it. This is not propaganda and if you think it is visit someone suffering from COPD. Lawbreakers are the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I would take anyone who disagreed with banning smokoing to visit those affected by it. This is not propaganda and if you think it is visit someone suffering from COPD. Lawbreakers are the problem. So do you think banning tobacco, like heroin, would lead to a reduction in smoking? If so why? All the available evidence suggests the opposite would happen, more people would start smoking & they'd be smoking an even more dangerous product while contributing towards the destruction of society rather than paying taxes. What about if I took you to see somebody suffering all the same illnesses who only smoked illegal duty free tobacco? Would they be less ill because the tobacco they smoke is banned? What about if tobacco was banned from shops, but prescribed for free to all smokers on the NHS? Then nobody would make money by selling tobacco, except the nhs tobacco farmers, there wouldn't be any kind of advertising or marketing. The people supplying it would be losing money by doing it so they would have an incentive to try to persuade people to stop & they would be a credible source of medical information (a doctor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 So do you think banning tobacco, like heroin, would lead to a reduction in smoking? If so why? All the available evidence suggests the opposite would happen, more people would start smoking & they'd be smoking an even more dangerous product while contributing towards the destruction of society rather than paying taxes. What about if I took you to see somebody suffering all the same illnesses who only smoked illegal duty free tobacco? Would they be less ill because the tobacco they smoke is banned? Robust policing would be needed. Do you consider it acceptable that the government should collect tax from a product which carries a government health warning and can cause dreadfull health problems ? A person can stop smoking if there is the will to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I would take anyone who disagreed with banning smokoing to visit those affected by it. This is not propaganda and if you think it is visit someone suffering from COPD. Lawbreakers are the problem. lawbreakers are not the problem harvey- it's the laws that are the problem. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, along with links to facts and evidence- 1. prohibition does not stop people taking drugs- numbers of users increase during prohibition and decrease when sanity prevails are prohibition is removed 2. actual harm to health is vastly higher during prohibition as the drugs in question are then not regulated, not pure and not rated in terms of strength, making safe use virtually impossible 3. prohibition facilitates a vast criminal infrastructure which would would virtually cease without prohibition 4. most drugs, including heroin, can be used sensibly and safely, if there is access to a regulated supply. No drug can be used safely if there is not a regulated supply, including alcohol, hence the large numbers of deaths and casualties from moonshine during alcohol prohibition the single biggest cause of harm and death with drugs is an unregulated supply- the best way to reduce actual harm from drugs is to allow access to a clean, regulated supply: other side effects of such a supply include reduction in crime and reduction in numbers of users. The evidence for the above is rife, easily available, and, covered in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 lawbreakers are not the problem harvey- it's the laws that are the problem. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, along with links to facts and evidence- 1. prohibition does not stop people taking drugs- numbers of users increase during prohibition and decrease when sanity prevails are prohibition is removed 2. actual harm to health is vastly higher during prohibition as the drugs in question are then not regulated, not pure and not rated in terms of strength, making safe use virtually impossible 3. prohibition facilitates a vast criminal infrastructure which would would virtually cease without prohibition 4. most drugs, including heroin, can be used sensibly and safely, if there is access to a regulated supply. No drug can be used safely if there is not a regulated supply, including alcohol, hence the large numbers of deaths and casualties from moonshine during alcohol prohibition the single biggest cause of harm and death with drugs is an unregulated supply- the best way to reduce actual harm from drugs is to allow access to a clean, regulated supply: other side effects of such a supply include reduction in crime and reduction in numbers of users. The evidence for the above is rife, easily available, and, covered in this thread. My post 478, what are your views ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.