Drugs - to legalise or not?

[Guest]

Good points. I've no idea about the long-term clinical use of pharmaceutical grade heroin, and whether the dose would need to be increased. I think I remember hearing something about GPs being able to wean people off very gently, if they are prescribing, but will need to check.

If we're talking about heroin as a means of obtaining a high, rather than of maintaining a normal every day level of functioning, my understanding of it - but I might be wrong - is that even if the heroin is of pharmaceutical grade, an addict will require an ever-increasing dose in order to obtain the same level of effect s/he requires. I'm not sure if there is some 'cut-off' level where a desired effect will be maintained by a certain concentration of drug.

As regards public opinion, I think there is definitely a stereotype of a heroin user, of the Trainspotting variety, which doesn't help. Neither the government nor our glorious media seem interested in sticking their necks out on this with a view to changing public attitudes and understanding - we should be demanding that they sort themselves out, as the current situation is costing us a fortune in financial and social terms.

I think that many 'newspapers' will happily maintain the stereotypical image of the heroin addict. It makes for a good, old-fashioned knee-jerk response. A trigger image, if you like. Like 'paediatrician'. Only the 'paed-' syllable is needed by some in order for the knee to be jerked.

[Phanerothyme]

Cyclone,

 

Re: costs to produce vs cost to supply. I agree, in principle. But what about HIV medications costing only a few pounds to make, yet costing a few hundred to the NHS per month? The drug companies aren't going to make this stuff for the good of their health (no pun intended)

 

I also think dealers would still exist in some form. GP's wouldn't be able to prescribe en endless amount of the drug to suit individual requirements, that would be taking the ****. So, to top up their habit, the user would need to obtain more - hence the dealer.

 

Street Heroin is about 30% pure and costs in the region of £50/g or £70/g in Scotland. That's an actual price of between £150/g and £210/g of diamorphine hydrochloride.

 

The NHS buys diamorphine prepared for injection at around £45/g. This is a strangely high figure, as the typical price for diamorphine powder is about £6.50/g. The £45/g figure is due to prohibition and the disinclination to have 25g tubs of the stuff lying about, and the stringent requirements regarding the nature of the preparation.

 

HIV medicines are under patent. So pharmas are trying to make their money back.

 

Diamorphine Hydrochloride is not under patent, and costs pennies to produce.

 

Your original figure of £850 million is what heroin addiction currently costs the exchequer as this money circumvents the national purse and goes straight back to the Taleban, the Turkish Mafia or whoever.

 

The cost of supplying heroin to all registered addicts as part of a programme would be closer to £145,000 per year.

 

 

Wherever the state has stepped in to supply heroin to addicts, the average age of addicts rises. Where prohibition exists, it is more or less stable.

 

Why wouldn't they? Pharmalogically pure heroin has very little by way of adverse side effects and many long term users manage to hold down jobs,families and remain healthy. In fact they are probably in a much better state than people who still get benzodiazepines from the GP , so why not let them use it indefinitely? It is extremely cheap to synthesize.

 

Hmm, I don't think it is very cheap to synthesise. Britain imports its own poppy straw (unrefined opium) and the morphine from that is extracted and acetylated to make diamorphine.

 

interestingly there is, and has been for some months, a serious diamorphine shortage in the UK. This is because of the refusal to import european diamorphine, and reliance upon the duopoly of diamorphine manufacturers in this country.

[Halibut]

 

Diamorphine Hydrochloride is not under patent, and costs pennies to produce

 

 

 

Hmm, I don't think it is very cheap to synthesise. Britain imports its own poppy straw (unrefined opium) and the morphine from that is extracted and acetylated to make diamorphine.

 

Help, explain please, how are both of these statements true?

[willman]

please make it legal & protect me from all the street crime & burglary that i am subjected to.

 

why legalise it?

should we not be looking at stopping the addiction in the first place."social" users like people on the forum apparrently have no problems with their own drug use. but then again who would admit to being an addict in the first place? so to them it could be an issue of human rights/personal choice etc.which i agree with.

however the amount of money spent on drugs because people need them to help relieve their conceived problems far outweighs the spend on social drugs.

the root cause for drug introduction should be the target.

 

we'll be legalising underage sex soon,we all knoe someone who's done it & they aren't a threat to society etc etc.

in fact lets legallise everything, get rid of the police & live in a state of complete chaos.

[Halibut]

Willman,

"the root cause for drug introduction should be the target"

 

I guess you mean tackling the reasons people want to/need to take drugs?

The first point here is that taking drugs is fun. It makes people feel nice;nobody becomes a smackhead because they like being skint and having to rob to feed an addiction; they do it because heroin feels extremely pleasant. This is true of other drugs also. It's the same reason people go to Alton Towers or Blackpool pleasure beach.

Also, arguably, people take drugs because they feel miserable,hopeless and without self worth.

Not sure how we tackle these problems as a nation.......

[Phanerothyme]

Help, explain please, how are both of these statements true?

It's ambiguous I grant you. Synthesis, to me, means that the drug is created in vitro from the 'ingredients' like mdma or amphetamine is.

 

Heroin is 'semi-synthetic' - the raw product is morphine produced in vivo (extracted from poppy straw) which undergoes a single (I believe) conversion to diamorphine. This process is much simpler than a complete synthesis of diamorphine from basic chemical building blocks (acetylaldehydes, benzene etc). I don't even know if an in vitro synthesis is possible TBH.

 

But comman usage does indeed say "heroin is synthesised from morphine", but hopefully you see the distinction I'm making.

[Halibut]

Thanks for the clarification, Phan.

[Cyclone]

Patented drugs are a very different subject as far as price is concerned compared to something like heroin.

It's illegal to produce a drug that is patented without a license, hence the drug companies can charge a premium to recoup the massive r&d budgets they spend.

Heroin is relatively straight forward to produce given a field of poppies (and some sort of acid i think). No company would be able to charge a premium for it if it's production were legal as it would be a simple and cheap product to make with few entry barriers for a company wishing to enter the market.

 

Cyclone,

 

Re: costs to produce vs cost to supply. I agree, in principle. But what about HIV medications costing only a few pounds to make, yet costing a few hundred to the NHS per month? The drug companies aren't going to make this stuff for the good of their health (no pun intended)

 

I also think dealers would still exist in some form. GP's wouldn't be able to prescribe en endless amount of the drug to suit individual requirements, that would be taking the ****. So, to top up their habit, the user would need to obtain more - hence the dealer.

 

Some people would end up barred from the service as a result of abusing the system, again, they'd need a dealer.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see a time when dealers won't be around. It certainly won't happen in my lifetime...

 

Dealers and users alike are swirling around in a cesspit of their own creation - what is the answer?.

 

To be honest, I don't know....

 

Re: Methadone usage. See this:http://www.getcured.com/methadon.htm

[willman]

Willman,

"the root cause for drug introduction should be the target"

 

I guess you mean tackling the reasons people want to/need to take drugs?

The first point here is that taking drugs is fun. It makes people feel nice;nobody becomes a smackhead because they like being skint and having to rob to feed an addiction; they do it because heroin feels extremely pleasant. This is true of other drugs also. It's the same reason people go to Alton Towers or Blackpool pleasure beach.

Also, arguably, people take drugs because they feel miserable,hopeless and without self worth.

Not sure how we tackle these problems as a nation.......

 

me neither.

 

is does appear however from my restricted view that the people who use it to make them happy, tend to be able to afford it or are just exploring it.

people who fall into the unhappy category are the one's who fall into crime - or is that too much of a generalisation?

 

if it makes u feel nice - why is that long term use makes people look like **** & feel like **** afterwards.or is this a generalistaion ?

[Guest]

... if it makes u feel nice - why is that long term use makes people look like **** & feel like **** afterwards.or is this a generalistaion ?

Heroin can be an appetite-suppressant, which can lead to dehydration and ultimately the associated gaunt appearance. In reality, the cost of funding a heroin addiction might lead the addict to neglect his/her health, food requirements etc. Repeated injection can also seriously bugger up veins, and not just those on the arms. Additionally, the activities some addicts undertake in order to finance their addiction won't do wonders for their general health and appearance either.

 

When the addict has insufficent funds to sustain their addiction, they also might be going through the effects of withdrawal, which will make them look and feel terrible.