spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In that it's an addictive drug that refutes your point. No, I know it's addictive, but people don't do tobacco shooters or such like because it doesn't work like that, stop being facetious! Yet that's not refuted my point. Alcoholics are addicted to alcohol, so that is the drug they need. No amount of free diamorphine will stop them being addicted to alcohol. No, many alcoholics will go for any high to get them by, and that does include heroin! (I used to be a drug councillor in the 90's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The focus should be on why the law enforcement agencies have been so unsuccessfull in stopping the production, distribution and use of illegal drugs. Law enforcement where drugs are concerned can't work. No amount of funding, fudging, increasing sentences or anything else prohibition has ever tried, has led to D.E.A being successful. That's why it hasn't worked- because it can't. We don't need to focus on why it's been not successful any more, we know the answer. Now let's get on with the important business of taking prohibition out of the process, because, not only does it not work, it also makes the problem way bigger than it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 No, many alcoholics will go for any high to get them by, and that does include heroin! Any proof of this assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 ... Now let's get on with the important business of taking prohibition out of the process, because, not only does it not work, it also makes the problem way bigger than it needs to be. IMHO, decriminalisation will never work, but legalisation could! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Any proof of this assertion? Yes, I already told you how to test it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon 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. It would also be up to the doctors judgement whether to prescribe those drugs, nobody will be able to get it automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It would also be up to the doctors judgement whether to prescribe those drugs, nobody will be able to get it automatically. Which leaves space for a black market! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 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. This forum is all about different opinions. If I understand you correctly you consider it acceptable for addicts to have no wish to stop their habit. Are you an expert on the subject or a qualified medical practitioner ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In that it's an addictive drug that refutes your point. Whilst looking for evidence for a response to another one of your questions I came across this! Teens who smoke cigarettes are over 13 times as likely to try heroin as teens who don't smoke. http://www.intheknowzone.com/substance-abuse-topics/refusal-skills/statistics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 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. Of course you'll get people going to their doctor for heroin (or whatever other legal source is put in place)- that's the whole point. And, if so, then the market for illegal heroin is finshed. Don't rely on the govt to sort this out- they've had their chance on multiple occasions and messed it up every time: we need widespread public understanding of the fact that prohibition itself is, in reality, the root of the harm based around the drug trade. The govt recently sacked it's own expert advisors because they pointed out that prohibition clearly does not work. The only time the govt will back down on this, is when it's clear that a lrage portion of the public are fully aware of how counter-productive prohibition is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.