Drug prohibition costs lives

[*_ash_*]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I do work for the NHS

 

It does disappoint me that I'm paying your wages, but it doesn't surprise me that you do. You write and appear to think like a politician/ideologist... in an absolutely clueless manner to suit the people who pay your money.

 

, and have always been upfront about it. I carry out my work in a professional manner, and always have the needs of the patient at the forefront.

 

I don't doubt you do. I would expect nothing less.

 

As far as my personal feelings are concerned, it would be wrong for me to have any other view than the one I hold, as I truly believe that education and non-legislation is the way forward. You say that no-one has said that therapy will sort this out, but I beg to differ. You seem to be able to hunt out quotes, so hunt this one out a few posts back;

 

Bold, you mean because you are told how to think.

 

2nd bold: Yes I read that, and you misunderstood it. You think just black and white as has been shown by all your posts so far.

 

Considering you teach CBT you should really understand addiction more before trying to use Pavlovian ideology as the be all and end all. The full picture is about managing different aspects of addiction, and one of the main problems is the supply chain, and the criminals that control it. This could easily be taken out of the frame, and save billions (yes billions, and I can back up any claim I make with evidence).

 

This the drugs war which you claim is unwinnable (and on this you could be right, because nothing is entirely ideal), IS actually perfectly capable of being controlled. The bottom line is that no politicians are willing to put their balls on the line.

 

Heroin for starters since we're discussing that one, is perfectly capable of being grown cheaply and harvested and used within the NHS, and could reduce crime in one swoop, not to mention the health of the patients that it deals with. i.e. there wouldn't be as many.

 

As for MDMA, your colleagues handed this out not many years ago, what's changed in your mind about this? It's perfectly usable drug which helped people with problems (depression/marital probs etc.), and if control is kept, then many people can enjoy this drug and feel great. As it is now, it's nice for people who find good supplies, but the majority is in the hands of people who couldn't care less. It's never killed anyone. The only thing that kills people is crap suppliers, and bad education, or misuse (which applies to anything legal now).

 

Yep, that sounds like "Make it legal, and it will all be fine" mentality to me. Sadly, in the real world that is not the case. But one thing I do know is that Cannabis/Weed/Heroin/Ecstasy to name but a few, cause harm to human biology that in most cases cannot be reversed.

 

Utter rubbish.

 

Now, even if certain substances were to be made legal, do you think for one second that qualified physicians would administer these drugs, knowing what harm they cause when taken in non-medical quantities? I know what these medical professionals think about it, due to the nature of my job, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the medical profession is most certainly NOT in favour of legalisation.

 

They hand out anti-depressants now. Anti-psychotics etc. Do you believe that all these are safe/ harmless and can't be misused?

 

You may think it should be, and im sorry that you are worried about the people who work within the NHS, and their thoughts on the matter, but whatever the lobbyists or politicians or "SOFTIES" may want to push through, this cannot be done without backup from the GMC, and because of the nature of the drugs, ie long term health/dependancy, recreational drugs of this ilk will not be available on the NHS in our lifetimes.

 

No matter how much pressure is put on by freedom sympathisers.

 

No wonder people avoid tax. You alone are one reason why I don't want to pay into a system that has such nonsense. Like I said though, you are quite clearly just posting your taught thoughts based on your career.

[Cyclone]

There are many senior medical professionals, including ones who work in the drug use field and study the issue, who think that decriminalisation is the obvious way forwards with regards to reducing harm.

Frankly I'm surprised to see a health professional that doesn't understand that and who appears to be regurgitating a line from south park "drugs are bad, mkay".

[anfisa]

Your questions don't make much logical sense, because your posing them with the aim of scoring points and seemingly driven by some sort of anti drug stance that appears to be unyielding to the blindingly obvious. hey ho I digress.

 

The rest of your post is not relevant to the point I made and your failure to answer the questions tells me that you can not demonstrate that the point I made was inaccurate.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 08:38 ----------

 

And you say I'm the one that's missing the point

 

1) Cannabis is a relatively harmless drug when compared to alcohol. People will smoke it, whether you like it or not. Does legalisation dramatically increase public usage? NO.

 

Does legalisation remove the trade from criminals? Yes!

 

Does legalisation generate tax revenue? Yes, and it can be put towards some good causes, including rehab.

 

2) Heroin is a drug that everyone wants to see the back of. Is it currently easy to get hold of? Yes!

 

Will legalisation mean selling it to people in shops like legalising cannabis would? No! It would mean prescribing it to addicts. Much the same as methadone is prescribed to them today.

 

How does someone get hooked on heroin? By visiting their health worker, or by visiting their dealer?

 

How would prescribing heroin to addicts change things?

 

It would mean a pure, controlled, monitored supply, with clean needles. This would stop deaths by overdosing and massively reduce infection rates. Saving lives. Addicts would be in a totally different environment, one that provided care and offered them a second chance.

 

Non of which is relevant to the point I made which you claimed was incorrect.

Does legalisation remove the trade from criminals?

No

 

Does legalisation generate tax revenue?

Not when it is offered for free.

2) Heroin is a drug that everyone wants to see the back of. Is it currently easy to get hold of?

Not as easy as it would be if it was offered for free at every pharmacy. Edited January 8, 2015 by anfisa

[psynuk]

The rest of your post is not relevant to the point I made and your failure to answer the questions tells me that you can not demonstrate that the point I made was inaccurate.

 

like I said it depends what stance your taking. You didn't make a point.

You just tried to connect different parts of a solution into a question designed to score an argumentative point.

 

I understand what point your getting at; but you seem to think that it's not a good idea to remove heroin supply as much as possible from criminals.

 

Answer me this if you would, What is the problem with the current heroin situation and how would you realistically like to deal with the problem?

 

Not as easy as it would be if it was offered for free at every pharmacy

 

There's only you suggesting that it's going to be on offer to all and sundry for free.

Edited January 8, 2015 by psynuk

[anfisa]

like I said it depends what stance your taking. You didn't make a point.

 

I made the point that supplying something for free will increase it consumption, several of you have disputed this but have failed to demonstrate that supplying something for free will decrease consumption.

[psynuk]

I made the point that supplying something for free will increase it consumption, several of you have disputed this but have failed to demonstrate that supplying something for free will decrease consumption.

 

Supplying heroin for free reduces consumption this is not disputed.

It does this as it encourages people into health system and onwards into rehab. By reducing the amount of dealers, as they are supplying to an ever reducing client base/area, they will reduce the amount of heroin bought/sold. There are only so many people who will use heroin, and if once your hooked your going to the government, where's the logic in being a heroin dealer?

You can't compete with the nhs when it comes to heroin prices.

By having a regulated dose people can taper off to nothing (no rehab needed) also reducing consumption.

 

But this has already been stated and demonstrated, like I said you didn't make a point. It's not simply about consumption its about sensible control.

[anfisa]

Supplying heroin for free reduces consumption this is not disputed.

 

No it does not, drug rehabilitation reduces consumption.

[Cyclone]

TDoes legalisation remove the trade from criminals?

No

Yes, it does.

 

 

Does legalisation generate tax revenue?

Not when it is offered for free.

So yes, when it is sold.

 

2) Heroin is a drug that everyone wants to see the back of. Is it currently easy to get hold of?

 

Easier than if it is free on prescription to addicts (not as you suggest free to anyone who fancies it).

 

So all your points are refuted.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 14:56 ----------

 

No it does not, drug rehabilitation reduces consumption.

 

Yes it does. You're just denying well established facts now.

 

When made freely available on prescription, it reduces usage.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 14:56 ----------

 

I made the point that supplying something for free will increase it consumption, several of you have disputed this but have failed to demonstrate that supplying something for free will decrease consumption.

 

Why is it for us to prove you wrong. How about you prove it to be correct?

[anfisa]

Yes, it does.

So yes, when it is sold.

 

Easier than if it is free on prescription to addicts (not as you suggest free to anyone who fancies it).

 

So all your points are refuted.

 

Alcohol and tobaco are both legal yet there is also a substantial amount of criminal activity sounding them. They are smuggled, forged, sold illegally.

 

My original point was countering an argument that offering for free reduces consumption, no mention at all about control, rehab, restricting supply.

 

So yet again you have failed to demonstrate that my point was incorrect, you can twist as much as you like but the fact remains that offering something for free will increase consumption.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 15:04 ----------

 

Yes it does. You're just denying well established facts now.

 

It is not a well established fact.

 

 

When made freely available on prescription, it reduces usage.

 

Not applicable to the point I made and the statement it countered.

 

Why is it for us to prove you wrong. How about you prove it to be correct?

 

I do not need to prove that increasing supply will increase consumption, its just common sense, offer people free cars, free bread, free fags, free booze, and consumption of them all will increase, if you think it will not then you will have to prove it.

[Cyclone]

I haven't had to twist at all, I answered and refuted your statements. Why you made them is irrelevant.

 

it is a well established fact, demonstrating your ignorance doesn't make your point stronger.

 

Your assertion, it's down to you to provide evidence for it. The fact that you consider it to be "common sense" is not evidence.

 

Did anyone actually suggest offering drugs for free (or as you've now said 'increasing supply')? Or is this all a straw man?