Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's been decriminalised in several places. No need to see the future. Your logic is a) contrary to this evidence and b) simplistic in that you ignore the behaviour of drug dealers in the equation. (People who wouldn't exist after prohibition ended). That's not the most relevant example, the more recent changes in Portugal and the experiment in the UK in the 60's would be better evidence. We all pay for the decisions of everybody else that impact their health as it is. Including the use of adulterated, unsafe drugs. I disagree, I think that you are in a sizeable minority, but a very vocal one and one which is often difficult to reason with and disinclined to look at the evidence instead of moralizing. ---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 15:19 ---------- Perhaps you've seen this in the news today? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10616198/Britains-war-on-drugs-unwinnable-says-Nick-Clegg.html Nobody listens to dead man walking Clegg. So the dealers would all vanish? Or would they simply be black marketeers? Moralising? You're clearly such s hard boiled veteran of this forum that you lump people in together. I'm not a moralist, don't believe in god or Mary Whitehouse. I've said anyone can do as they please, just don't expect the majority I represent to pay for it. I've covered paying for mainstream drugs. The majority won't accept a whole new raft of addicts and expensive treatments to be added to their tax bill. You and the other echo chambers can debate all you like, that won't happen. One area I'm ignorant about is the cost of treatment for hard drugs. If, as I expect it is high then that only weakens your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So the dealers would all vanish? Or would they simply be black marketeers? . If the drug was legalised and sold at an appropriate price by the state would it be worth the risk dealing in something that would have very little profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Define hysterical. I'd also love to see you debating Witt the mothers of heroin victims. I doubt they'd have much time for your ifs buts and maybes. That seems like a pretty hysterical response to me. Your response was "perhaps you can enlighten us?" Stalin used to say those who disagreed with him were mad. Well I'd be happy to agree with you if you had anything of any substance to agree with. I'm not talking about dealers, Im talking about potential users. Heroin isn't easily accessible, presumably if it were legal it would be. Heroin *is* easily accessible already, anyone who wants it could find some with little difficulty, if it were freely available it wouldn't make a great deal of difference, I still think most people wouldn't partake. You also seem to assume the dealers would disappear. Not all users would want to go through with formal means to obtain it. Not at all, I'm sure they won't just pack up shop and move along, however, who's going to want to pay for something that can be obtained unadulterated and at a stated dose over something that's full of crap and might kill you for 100 times the price? I've already covered legal drug use treatment. I believe it is morally wrong that the taxpayer should cover it, however as most people drink and or smoke then democracy has the final say. If I am wrong on here then I'll be seen to be wrong and the masses will vote for the legalisation of all drugs and be happy to pay for any subsequent spike in usage. I look forward to the changing times proving me wrong. As do I. I don't recognise the term straw man. However I think it's easy for a few fellow travellers on here in the echo chamber to convince themselves of an unpopular cause. Out in the real world you'd get short shrift. This explains why the mainstream parties haven't adopted your wisdom. Yeah, it's always a "group of firebrands" saying the same thing, not at all could they be making the point that you're just plain wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Define hysterical. Your response was "perhaps you can enlighten us?" Stalin used to say those who disagreed with him were mad. I'm not talking about dealers, Im talking about potential users. Heroin isn't easily accessible, presumably if it were legal it would be. No, nobody has proposed selling it in Tesco's or making it easily accessible. The usual model is to provide it free to anyone diagnosed as an addict. You also seem to assume the dealers would disappear. Indeed. They do. Why try to get someone hooked if they will then simply get it supplied by the state, no profit it in anymore means no more dealers. Not all users would want to go through with formal means to obtain it. The evidence suggests that most will happily take a clean free supply over that from a dealer. I've already covered legal drug use treatment. I believe it is morally wrong that the taxpayer should cover it, however as most people drink and or smoke then democracy has the final say. If I am wrong on here then I'll be seen to be wrong and the masses will vote for the legalisation of all drugs and be happy to pay for any subsequent spike in usage. I look forward to the changing times proving me wrong. It will happen, prohibition has never worked, it's the failure to understand that that has let it go on for so long and wasted so much money (and lives). I don't recognise the term straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man However I think it's easy for a few fellow travellers on here in the echo chamber to convince themselves of an unpopular cause. Out in the real world you'd get short shrift. This explains why the mainstream parties haven't adopted your wisdom. We all live in the real world. And there are plenty of moralistic short sighted people who refuse to look at the evidence on here to keep everyone honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Most of the evidence from countries and localities that have depenalised heroin use or possession is that the average age of users goes up over time, and fewer new users come onto the scene. A good contrast to make would be between the US and Holland. The facts themselves make pretty interesting reading: Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (2009 figures) USA - 41.5% (ages 12 and up) Netherlands - 25.7% (ages 15-64) Past year prevalence of marijuana use (2009 figures) USA - 11.3% Netherlands - 7.0% Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (2009 figures) USA - 1.5% Netherlands - 0.5% Prison Population Rate per 100,000 population (2011/12 figures) USA - 7163 Netherlands - 823 Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros 1998 figures) USA - €3795 Netherlands - €2235 I wish you'd stop confusing the issue by posting facts. This is Sheffield Forum and your facts aren't welcome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Nobody listens to dead man walking Clegg. So the dealers would all vanish? Or would they simply be black marketeers? You can't undercut something that is free. And the news article is just to make it clear that the mainstream are thinking about the failure of prohibition. Moralising? You're clearly such s hard boiled veteran of this forum that you lump people in together. I'm not a moralist, don't believe in god or Mary Whitehouse. I've said anyone can do as they please, just don't expect the majority I represent to pay for it. That is moralising. Because every decision we make has consequences and the NHS pick up the pieces. I've covered paying for mainstream drugs. The majority won't accept a whole new raft of addicts and expensive treatments to be added to their tax bill. You and the other echo chambers can debate all you like, that won't happen. You continue to pretend that addict numbers will increase. Are you simply going to ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your world view? One area I'm ignorant about is the cost of treatment for hard drugs. If, as I expect it is high then that only weakens your cause. Methadone is dirt cheap, so is heroin when purchased legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If the drug was legalised and sold at an appropriate price by the state would it be worth the risk dealing in something that would have very little profit? Logically no but there's plenty of black market booze n' fags floating about. Maybe the price of legalised drugs would be reasonable, who knows? ---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 16:33 ---------- That seems like a pretty hysterical response to me. Well I'd be happy to agree with you if you had anything of any substance to agree with. Heroin *is* easily accessible already, anyone who wants it could find some with little difficulty, if it were freely available it wouldn't make a great deal of difference, I still think most people wouldn't partake. Not at all, I'm sure they won't just pack up shop and move along, however, who's going to want to pay for something that can be obtained unadulterated and at a stated dose over something that's full of crap and might kill you for 100 times the price? As do I. Yeah, it's always a "group of firebrands" saying the same thing, not at all could they be making the point that you're just plain wrong! It is just a group of firebrands or chin strokers yes, oh and Nick Clegg. Good luck. We all know heroin is sold in Sheffield but its not like popping to the shops for Polo's or to the doctor for a prescription. Twice now you've branded me as hysterical, on one occasion getting both of our posts wiped. On both occasions I mentally shake my head at some comments, nod at others but mainly roll my eyes. Now I know you've got a high opinion of yourself but please don't assume I'm driven to strong emotion on what is an academic 'debate'. Even if Clegg loses the Libs yet more votes by ambling for legalisation the two big parties never will. ---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 16:37 ---------- No, nobody has proposed selling it in Tesco's or making it easily accessible. The usual model is to provide it free to anyone diagnosed as an addict. Indeed. They do. Why try to get someone hooked if they will then simply get it supplied by the state, no profit it in anymore means no more dealers. The evidence suggests that most will happily take a clean free supply over that from a dealer. It will happen, prohibition has never worked, it's the failure to understand that that has let it go on for so long and wasted so much money (and lives). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man We all live in the real world. And there are plenty of moralistic short sighted people who refuse to look at the evidence on here to keep everyone honest. So if its sold to addicts only then dealers would have to exist to cater to those still wanting to try it from new. The lessening of the stigma would only encourage more people to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Methadone is dirt cheap, so is heroin when purchased legally. Heroin is legally produced in this country from the opium poppies grown near Lincoln, amongst other places. Here's some photos in a feature the Daily Mail published last summer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353535/Not-Afghanistan-Lincolnshire-Bumper-crop-lilac-morphine-poppies-grown-medicinal-purposes-heart-Britain.html On a clear day in season you can probably see them from the top of Ringinglow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 You completely missed my point. Laws are made by the rich to suit their needs (get richer) in any case. Common sense should be the law. I'm not sure about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 One area I'm ignorant about is the cost of treatment for hard drugs. If, as I expect it is high then that only weakens your cause. Maintenance therapy for heroin addiction is very cheap, because heroin is cheap to produce. Given a clean works and reliable supply, this method of dealing with addicts works in three ways. a)it protects society from property crime associated with opiate addiction, freeing up large amounts of money. b)it protects young people, by taking the heroin out of control of the mid level dealers who have a vested interest in getting young people addicted, and hooking "customers for life". Where this has been tried, the average age of heroin users has steadily risen, and the number of them has slowly decreased. c)it cuts down on preventable harms for users, who no longer use dirty works or inject adulterated product. In terms of value for money, reduced harms and putting use on a downward trend, maintenance therapy pays back many times what is put in. It's win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.