harvey19 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 harvey, we both want fewer drug takers. Liberalisation means fewer drug takers. I want fewer addicts not legalised addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 harvey, we both want fewer drug takers. Liberalisation means fewer drug takers. That article and others also indicate that numbers are not so accurate, especially since so many more now never turn up for court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Have you just completely ignored mort's warning above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Basicaly I do not support a change in legislation that would condone people becoming addicted to a substance which is at present illegal. I would not want my children to become addicted to a drug which they became dependant on. Instead of giving free drug supplies to addicts who have inflicted the dependency on themselves they should be tret to break the addiction. Understandable- especially the part about not wanting your children to become addicts. So, how about this: there are a lot of drugs out there- heroin being the 'demon' in most peoples eyes, but, the others, like cannabis (VERY popular amongst the young), E's, the multitude of 'new' drugs that are attempts to to 'get high' legally, which then become illegal and are replaced by more 'new' drugs etc, etc. However well we think we know our children, the fact is that many, at some point, will try out a illegal substance. If it were my children, i'd much prefer that, if they're going to take something, that it be regulated, pure, free of toxic additives and of a listed strength so that it can be taken without overdosing- I would much prefer that, to them taking some rubbish bought off uncaring criminals who've cut it with poison and of unspecified quality and strength. As many have pointed out, even heroin, the 'demon' drug, is actualy pretty harmless if pure, regulated and taken responsibly. If you're bringing children into this, then, reflect on the fact that pretty much every child that's died as a result of overdosing on illegal drugs, would likely be alive today, if they'd had the opportunity to take it responsibly and had access to a clean, regulated, rated product, instead of the crap they actually got off some criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Approx 5%, that is a minority! How did you come to your 5% figure? Remember we are talking about 16-59 year olds in England and Wales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I don't know which drugs you refer to. I do not support policies that increase the number of drug takers. It seems that the law enforcement agencies have been unsuccessfull and maybe that is where we should be focusing our attention. Why not focus your attention where it can actually do some good? Enforcement has been unsuccessful not because of any incompetence or lack of funding- it's been unsuccessful beause it can never succeed. There will always be drug users- throwing yet more funding at D.E.A's will only make the problem worse. Drugs will not kill, if said drugs are regulated, legally available, of rated strength and taken responsibly. This is obvious even in the case of alcohol, a drug which is medically more damaging to health than heroin- despite this, with regulation, it is possible to use alcohol responsibly with vastly less health issues than were evident during the time it was prohibited. The 'moonshine' available during that prohibition, is exactly analogous to the products sold on the street currently under our prohibition- street 'heroin' kills for the same reasons moonshine did- it's unregulated and laced with toxins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I think quite a few Russians die from moonshine, in India people go blind after drinking God knows what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 . onewheeldave post 554 If the heroin was to become legal then,where do you propose one's child should obtain their first dose of pure heroin? as i assume you would expect them to wish to try it,and have no concerns about them doing so,considering you think its harmless. Sorry i had to delete your post because of some fault with tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If the heroin was to become legal then,where do you propose one's child should obtain their first dose of pure heroin? as i assume you would expect them to wish to try it,and have no concerns about them doing so,considering you think its harmless. With respect Janie, I think you're being rather silly there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 With respect Janie, I think you're being rather silly there. With respect Halibut, i don't think i am, its a valid question. Maybe you would like to answer it? Fact of the matter is no one wants to answer it because no one wants to think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.