spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 What leads to believe that alcoholics would suddenly ditch booze for heroin? Because they have very little money (if any) and Chris_Sleeps is proposing that it's free, keep up with the discussion, that was already pointed out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Who won't have a market because addicts can go and get free heroin. The anti-prohibition argument doesn't have a solution to people starting taking drugs, mainly because there isn't one solid route into opiate use. I'm open to other interpretations though. The focus should be on why the law enforcement agencies have been so unsuccessfull in stopping the production, distribution and use of illegal drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's irrelevant. We don't have any knowledge of what the current government would do. We have even less knowledge about what hypothetical governments would do. It's worthless. They'd have to go and rationally speak to a doctor about their wish to try a new drug for recreational purposes. You think that'd be a common occurence? Equally, they could just buy dangerous street heroin off of a drug pusher who wants a new supply of addicts. No we don't know what any goverment would do, but we expect them to do something. Theres a parlimentary debate due in September about the suggested legalsing of cannabis,so hopefully that will highlight other drug issues. I don't think that there would anyone going to their doctor requesting heroin for recreational use,thats why unless its sold in supermarkets (highly unlikely and unthinkable) we can only assume that the drug pushers would still be supplying it in its impure form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Because they have very little money (if any) That's false. Alcoholics come from all areas of life. From the wealthy, to the poor, from the famous, to the down-and-outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 We give away free opiates now. It hasn't ended alcoholism. Alcoholics also have a clean supply of the drug, for they can buy it in shops. Their addiction is very damaging, but it isn't the product that is crippling them. It's their abuse of it that is damaging them. So are you actually saying that only people who are already addicts can get free heroin? That would leave an open market still! I remember back in the early 90's where people would ask you to go to the Doctors to get, say Valium so they could sell it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I never said the Doctor should give it to young people. My point was that if they wanted to try opiates, they would speak to a doctor. That is not saying that the Doctor should just hand them over without question. Where would young people get pure heroin from? It's all hypothetical ... so I don't know. It wouldn't stop addiction, but it would certainly give addicts a safe clean supply. You have ommitted to answer several other points related to the ones you have replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 That's false. Alcoholics come from all areas of life. From the wealthy, to the poor, from the famous, to the down-and-outs. Hence why I went to lengths to use and explain the term "wino". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 we can only assume that the drug pushers would still be supplying it in its impure form. I can't disagree, but there is a contradiction in saying that drug pushers will want people addicted to a product that addicts get for free. It's a grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You have ommitted to answer several other points related to the ones you have replied to. Point them out to me and I'll try my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It all boils down to trying to protect people from becoming addicted. ...... Never forget most addicts have become such through their own actions and were aware of the consequences. Through their own actions they should take steps to break the addiction and not be given the means o continue it. I think there could be truth in the theory but in this case do not think it is a case to change the law. The severe addictiveness is the core argument. No, it doesn't all boil down to that, and, it's not the core argument. It's your opinion that those are the case. And, as you admit above, when you say "there could be truth in the theory, but...' and go on to completely disregard the theory because you're way more interested in your obsessive quest to force addicts to reform themselves. I think you'll find that addicts, when/if they do choose to escape their addiction, will seek out the assistance of professionals who know what they're talking about- if you want to find out more about realistic ways to deal with addiction, it would be a good idea for you to talk to such professionals, cos it's very clear from your posts that you've very little idea when it comes to addiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.