Jump to content

Question about drugs


Recommended Posts

Well as for giving access to heroin for heroin addicts so they don't commit crime is a cowards idea, they didn't need heroin before they went on heroin...and if the government seriously cares then the only way to stop this evil being peddled by the middleman is to give them at least 20 years in prison on the first offense, after a while they shouldn't be any left
A splendid idea. The only problem is there is still a heroin problem within jails. Its still getting in. So the problem isn't going away and you're just punishing the wrong people
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as for giving access to heroin for heroin addicts so they don't commit crime is a cowards idea, they didn't need heroin before they went on heroin...and if the government seriously cares then the only way to stop this evil being peddled by the middleman is to give them at least 20 years in prison on the first offense, after a while they shouldn't be any left

Better idea! bring back hanging, or even better still, cut their heads off like they did in the French Revolution with all the Toffs, then start down the list of Toffs in this country starting with Royal's then Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson ect.:hihi::thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the middlemen are responsible for that so they will be in there with them so they won't be able to get hold of it
And once the middlemen are in there they will be replaced with more middlemen.

 

Have you ever read Freakonomics by Steven Leavitt? It explains that crack gangs are basically run in the same way as McDonalds. The footsoldiers start on crappy wages and learn the trade and as they prove their worth they gain more responsibility and move up in the business and become less visible to the police and have people working for them. If they get removed either by dropping out because of stress or by being shot which is the two most common reasons they have already trained their replacement so it doesn't matter. Its the men at the very top who need taking down but even then it doesn't really make a difference because theres someone to replace them.

 

Possibly an answer would be to take the legality issue of drugs out of the equation. If people didn't have to go to criminals for drugs then maybe they wouldn't be subject to such unnaturally high and volatile prices and wouldn't have to commit crimes to get drugs. Their addiction could be managed and not cured but certainly they could be helped and possibly brought back into society.

 

Doesn't that make more sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to do some figuring now Doris,and i'm all for reducing the prison population,but how do we acchieve that.

Which drugs do you think should be legal? and how would you make them available to anyone who wants to take them,and would you also include class A drugs.

For instance,assuming that you want them to be prescribed by a GP (as perhaps Cannabis should be for people with certain medical conditions) would you expect a GP to prescribe a class B drug to anyone.

 

I wasn't being serious about them being sold in supermarkets,but they're are quite a few people who think that Cannabis should be sold as freely as alchohol,because they believe it is less harmful.

 

It's not just the view of a few people that believe that Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, it's just the prevalent opinion of the scientists who have investigated the issue.

 

For the record I'm not suggesting that Cannabis should be made available on supermarket shelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear me, now your real opinion comes out.

 

Alcohol is poison? You don't drink?

Paracetamol is poison? You never take any medicinal drug?

The cannabis plant is poison?

 

Our sites attaching the label illegal turn them into poison? If so then removing it will make then not poison won't it.

 

Nobody was talking about running to the government, we were talking about how best to deal with the crime associated with drug use, and the best way is to legalise most drugs under different levels of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinker raises a good point there; realistically safe and legal drugs would have to be given out free to the more serious addicts.
Thats pretty much the scenario. Thats pretty much what happens anyway. You give them drugs and gradually lower the dose by tiny amounts over a long period of time safely so they can be weened off the drug. There was a programme that did exactly this in Portsmouth in the 80's and was very successful until the government withdrew funding.

 

I would suggest taxing less harmful recreational drugs to fund such programmes would be the way to go. While monitoring the users of those drugs at the same time as well of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.