Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Quite, Heroin use/abuse skyrocketed as a direct result of it's prohibition, not in spite of it. The vast profits from it's illegality introduce a huge incentive to push. That simply wouldn't be the case if the legislation weren't so backwards. With regard to heroin, the vast majority of deaths/issues are again, as a direct result of it's prohibition. It is adulterated to maximise profits, and there's no way to guarantee dosage. As for treatment on the NHS, I doubt it would be any worse than it is now. I don't see that many people up in arms about treatment needed as a result of legal drugs. Is it not the case that methodone and other treatments for harder drugs cost far more than a stomach being pumped? Would the taxpayer be agreeable for thousands or millions of new addicts suddenly being entitled to NHS treatment when its overburdened already? We can discuss principles all day long, what about realpolitik? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Is it not the case that methodone and other treatments for harder drugs cost far more than a stomach being pumped? Would the taxpayer be agreeable for thousands or millions of new addicts suddenly being entitled to NHS treatment when its overburdened already? We can discuss principles all day long, what about realpolitik? They are entitled to it already (not to mention all the millions of pounds that would be saved in losing our current war against drugs were they to be legalised). Tell me, if heroin was legalised tomorrow would you buy it and shoot up? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 They are entitled to it already (not to mention all the millions of pounds that would be saved in losing our current war against drugs were they to be legalised). Tell me, if heroin was legalised tomorrow would you buy it and shoot up? jb No but thousands of young people, easily led, impressionable and trend following would. Do you doubt the number of addicts would go up? Addicts are entitled at the moment, though most would vote against that. Do you think people would be agreeable to the numbers quadrupling? Increasing ten fold? The savings from the war on drugs could be spent on so many better things than treating fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Is it not the case that methodone and other treatments for harder drugs cost far more than a stomach being pumped? I wouldn't know, perhaps you could enlighten us? Supplying a drug would most likely to be cheaper than employing people to carry out a procedure each time, especially since economies of scale would reduce the costs of production of said drug. This assumes that you're correct in your assertion that millions of new users would suddenly spring up from nowhere, I don't believe that would be the case. Again, the rise in the use of Heroin is directly linked to it's criminality, and thus the huge incentive to push the drug. Would the taxpayer be agreeable for thousands or millions of new addicts suddenly being entitled to NHS treatment when its overburdened already? Addicts are already entitled to NHS treatment, there is no reason to assume that "thousands or millions" of new addicts will spring up. Why would they, the increase in the number of addicts was as a result of it's criminality, not in spite of it. Perhaps the NHS would do much better when the billions wasted on the "war on drugs" is no longer needed, and can be re-purposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I wouldn't know, perhaps you could enlighten us? Supplying a drug would most likely to be cheaper than employing people to carry out a procedure each time, especially since economies of scale would reduce the costs of production of said drug. This assumes that you're correct in your assertion that millions of new users would suddenly spring up from nowhere, I don't believe that would be the case. Again, the rise in the use of Heroin is directly linked to it's criminality, and thus the huge incentive to push the drug. Addicts are already entitled to NHS treatment, there is no reason to assume that "thousands or millions" of new addicts will spring up. Why would they, the increase in the number of addicts was as a result of it's criminality, not in spite of it. Perhaps the NHS would do much better when the billions wasted on the "war on drugs" is no longer needed, and can be re-purposed. I ask an honest question about the cost of heroin treatments and you come back with a daft answer? If I knew I wouldn't ask. If you're going to reply then do so, not ask me a daft question. You keep saying in spite of, how are you sure of this? I've already explained why many new addicts would spring up, it's new accessibility, those who thought about it but never dared now being able to do so, the list of reasons is endless. I'd also love to see you debating with the mothers of heroin victims. I doubt they'd have much time for your ifs buts and maybes. I can see I'm being painted as the unthinking anti drugs reactionary. The Daily Mail will be mentioned soon no doubt. I'm happy for people to inject, smoke or snort what they like, as long as I don't pay for their treatment. Before you press the booze n' fags button, yes that goes for them too. At the end if the day people make choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 No but thousands of young people, easily led, impressionable and trend following would. Do you doubt the number of addicts would go up? Addicts are entitled at the moment, though most would vote against that. Do you think people would be agreeable to the numbers quadrupling? Increasing ten fold? Yes I doubt the number would go up. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that it would? I, for one, wouldn't vote against addicts receiving medical aid. Nor would I vote against people being treated for the adverse effects of alcohol, or smoking, playing contact sports or horse riding. The savings from the war on drugs could be spent on so many better things than treating fools. Yes, the money could be spent on tackling the reasons people fall into drug misuse in the first place. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Presumably if any such laws come to mind, would you not hesitate to break such law if it presented an obstacle to you. I think it's wrong that all Taxis displaying the Hackney Carriage badge should still by law carry a bail of straw.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yes I doubt the number would go up. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that it would? I, for one, wouldn't vote against addicts receiving medical aid. Nor would I vote against people being treated for the adverse effects of alcohol, or smoking, playing contact sports or horse riding. Yes, the money could be spent on tackling the reasons people fall into drug misuse in the first place. jb I have nothing to back up my assertion just as you have nothing to back up yours. Common sense, history and understanding of human nature tells us that if a forbidden fruit is no longer forbidden then many will want to try it. We won't know how many would stop trying it. I along with most of the UK would vote against treatment for hard drugs. Booze n' fags would continue to be treated as they are soft majority drugs, at least booze is. There is no argument with sport as its natural, drugs are not. Your last sentence is just simple idealism. There is no agreement on how money could do that. What all elections of the last 40 years have taught us is the average Brit doesn't want their hard earned being poured into social engineering or being given to the undeserving. No party promoting yours or Magilla's views would stand a chance. Any mainstream party that did so would lose votes in massive numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 . There is no argument with sport as its natural, drugs are not. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think it's wrong that all Taxis displaying the Hackney Carriage badge should still by law carry a bail of straw.... That law was repealed in 1976. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.