TeaFan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 This has cropped up in a few threads recently, so in an attempt to keep those threads on-topic, lets do this debate in this one. I'll start: this is an idea, it's doubtless flawed, but it's a start. Allow heroin addicts to get it through their GP. This takes them away from criminality, reduces burglaries, and removes any incentive for dealers to sell H. If people become addicted, but can then get it from their GP, no money for the dealers. All other currently illegal drugs apart from crack licensed for legal sale. Advertising not legal. Detailed health advice to be included with each sale. All of the law enforcement budget money for the above substances, plus tax revenue, put towards going aggressively after crack dealers and suppliers, plus much better education about possible negative consequences of all drug use (inc. alcohol and tobacco). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Sounds reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of your post Teafan; well put, and I think what you say about revenue from sales going into education (and treatment for addicts surely?)is sound, but I can't see the point in leaving crack outside of the law. Before anyone accuses me of being pro-crack , I'll say it's a dangerously addictive, potentially extremely unpleasant substance. But if we leave it illegal aren't we leaving a huge slice of the market open to the very people we want to isolate - the criminal gangs and organised crime syndicates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 19, 2006 Author Share Posted February 19, 2006 I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of your post Teafan; well put, and I think what you say about revenue from sales going into education (and treatment for addicts surely?)is sound, but I can't see the point in leaving crack outside of the law. Before anyone accuses me of being pro-crack , I'll say it's a dangerously addictive, potentially extremely unpleasant substance. But if we leave it illegal aren't we leaving a huge slice of the market open to the very people we want to isolate - the criminal gangs and organised crime syndicates. For some reason, I just can't bring myself to say "we should legalise crack". I think it's because it's SO addictive. I've known people who managed to smoke H from time to time and not get addicted (although I know others who got sucked under as well). I have no idea whether anyone has "tried" crack and got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSparkle Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 This has cropped up in a few threads recently, so in an attempt to keep those threads on-topic, lets do this debate in this one. I'll start: this is an idea, it's doubtless flawed, but it's a start. Allow heroin addicts to get it through their GP. This takes them away from criminality, reduces burglaries, and removes any incentive for dealers to sell H. If people become addicted, but can then get it from their GP, no money for the dealers. All other currently illegal drugs apart from crack licensed for legal sale. Advertising not legal. Detailed health advice to be included with each sale. All of the law enforcement budget money for the above substances, plus tax revenue, put towards going aggressively after crack dealers and suppliers, plus much better education about possible negative consequences of all drug use (inc. alcohol and tobacco). This all sounds eminently sensible to me (although I'm not entirely sure why you'd leave out crack?) - I just wish there were law-makers around who would have the guts to go this way. What the world needs is fresh approaches to problems, not the same old dogmas that have failed in the past. StarSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 As it happens I can't claim any knowledge of "occasional" or "recreational" crack users either,TeaFan. The phrase "I'm all for legalising crack" doesn't exactly fill one's heart with joy,but i do honestly believe it's the right way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sTaGeWaLkEr Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 This has cropped up in a few threads recently, so in an attempt to keep those threads on-topic, lets do this debate in this one. I'll start: this is an idea, it's doubtless flawed, but it's a start. Allow heroin addicts to get it through their GP. This takes them away from criminality, reduces burglaries, and removes any incentive for dealers to sell H. If people become addicted, but can then get it from their GP, no money for the dealers. All other currently illegal drugs apart from crack licensed for legal sale. Advertising not legal. Detailed health advice to be included with each sale. All of the law enforcement budget money for the above substances, plus tax revenue, put towards going aggressively after crack dealers and suppliers, plus much better education about possible negative consequences of all drug use (inc. alcohol and tobacco). All sounds very good in principle, but who's going to fund this? I’m assuming it will be the taxpayer again? Something to think about. In 2003/04, 125,545 individuals were reported to be receiving structured drug treatment. 67% of those were heroin users. Remember, these are only the users that are requesting help/been ordered by a judge to receive help. Some of my former clients had a habit costing a couple of hundred quid a week....so times that by the amount of heroin users in the country....and..... Based on the figures above, and the habit statistics, if all the users that were receiving help during 2003/04 were to have got heroin through their GP, over the period of the year, this would have cost a staggering 884 million pounds! And don't forget, this is just for the people who had admitted to a problem and were receiving support at that time. It didn't take into consideration the massive number of users who are unaccounted for and either happy/unhappy in their use. My point is.........there are people dying in our country because they can't access medication/treatment due to insufficient resources. Why should we pay to send a drug user on a happy trip?? I don't care if the user does have issues. Drugs aren't the answer to dealing with crap - and I have very little time for people who use this as an excuse. Let them tap into the countless therapeutic interventions that exist for their benefit (at the cost of the taxpayer) get themselves clean, and improve their self-esteem/image/confidence.......not shove another bag of crap up their nose/in their arm/down their throat/delete as appropriate And before anyone decides to jump on me for my views, I've got far more first hand experience than most! When it comes to Heroin use, I’ve seen things that no person should ever have to see, not even a professional. I won't get into justifying my opinions on here, or debating their validity, because at the end of the day, I acknowledge that we all have different ones - please just accept my right to mine. Nice idea, but not really viable. Can I have my dinner now please? ***Stagewalker*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Stagewalker et al You ask who is to fund the drugs programmes (what ever they may be). It is the same people who are funding the junkies now. You and Me. They do not get their money from thin air. It is obtained by stealing and robbing so the pushers can ride around in flash cars and run off back to their countries of origin when the heat is on. You seem to think that legalisation means condoning this filthy addiction, far from it. It means bringing out into the light where it can be seen and hopefully wither and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 the costs are based on the street price of drugs though. Actual manufacturing costs would be an order of thousands lower. Can I just clarify TeaFan whether you are suggesting that anyone who wanted H could just go to the GP and get some? Not as a form of treatment to get them off it, but just as a regulated place of supply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 the costs are based on the street price of drugs though. Actual manufacturing costs would be an order of thousands lower. Can I just clarify TeaFan whether you are suggesting that anyone who wanted H could just go to the GP and get some? Not as a form of treatment to get them off it, but just as a regulated place of supply? Only existing addicts to get it from their GP. Dealers could still sell it, but what would be the point, when people could then just maintain themselves through their GP? So we might be paying for a generation of users to get their fix, but it should be the last generation of users. When I get time, I'll try and find an estimate of the weekly cost per person to the NHS of supplying the drug, unless someone can beat me to 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.