Legalise Drugs

[Flaxbourton Red]

In my opinion all this has come about by over taxing cigarettes. It's now cheaper to buy hard drugs than a packet of 20 cigarettes. I'd much rather people be smoking cigarettes than buying wraps of hard drugs.

well they would be dying quicker then if you had your way

[Mr Mosquito]

well they would be dying quicker then if you had your way

You might find that you'll meet your end far quicker with a heroine or cocaine addiction than a cigarette nicotine addiction.

[Flaxbourton Red]

You might find that you'll meet your end far quicker with a heroine or cocaine addiction than a cigarette nicotine addiction.

oh right - they cause cancer then do they?

[Mr Mosquito]

oh right - they cause cancer then do they?

A heroin or cocaine addiction will send you to your maker far quicker than a cigarette addiction.

[94th Minute]

You might find that you'll meet your end far quicker with a heroine or cocaine addiction than a cigarette nicotine addiction.

A heroin or cocaine addiction will send you to your maker far quicker than a cigarette addiction.

Is this not the same point made twice over.

I don't doubt for a second that those who die of heroin abuse, pass away a shorter time period after starting their addiction, but I would probably also suggest smoking leads to a higher mortality rate eventually. Just because heroin is killing 40 year olds whilst smoking is killing 60 year olds, does that make its mortality rate any less meaningful?

I don't think the lower (assumed) mortality in heroin is any reason for an argument of the legalization, heroin availibility to a greater amount of the population would inevitably lead to increased incidence of death inducing polydrug taking

All drugs are dangerous, at least people know the risks of smoking

[Nibor]

heroin availibility to a greater amount of the population would inevitably lead to increased incidence of death inducing polydrug taking

That is just bollocks on several counts:

1) Heroin is already available to everyone, if you think otherwise you are in cloud cuckoo land.

2) Heroin doesn't kill people, massive variations in purity and badly cut drugs do - prescripton managed heroin will not suffer from those.

3) None of the evidence from countries who have more relaxed laws and enforcement supports your notion at all, in fact quite the opposite.

People don't do heroin because it's there. They do it because they have no hope and aspiraton and get stuck into a vicious circle. Making them criminals just adds to that, it means the health and social services can't identify and target help at them.

What exactly is your argument? You fear more people will become addicted and die if it's decriminalized? If it's done sensibly that's just insupportable as systems in other countries show.

[Mr Mosquito]

People don't do heroin because it's there. They do it because they have no hope and aspiraton and get stuck into a vicious circle. Making them criminals just adds to that, it means the health and social services can't identify and target help at them.

It's all rather sad but some people just find life too difficult and try to escape that life by smoking, drinking, taking heroin/ cocaine to excess. To less addictive/ distressed people these substances undoubtedly give enjoyment - there have been many great people in the art world that have been able to produce brilliant works with the help of certain drugs.

[94th Minute]

- there have been many great people in the art world that have been able to produce brilliant works with the help of certain drugs.

An interesting point I hadn't previously considered; whist some of these works were produced under the influence of absinthe which has more previously been shown to have no added drug effect over strong alcohol content (but it is good stuff, there's something going on there I'm sure). Some of these must have been carried out on drugs which could have seriously damaged their health.

Which raises the question why when it comes to art are we more than happy for the top of the field to take drugs if it gives cool results; yet when it comes to sportsmen we punish them. Isn't what we all want to see the sub 8 second 100m, the 3m 20 world record in the high jump? Is this an area where drugs should seriously be legalised? Would people stop complaining about the high wages of sportsmen if they were putting their health on the line?? Well I thought it tied in with the leagalization of drugs reasonably well

As for the point on people not taking heroin just because its there, and using it as an escape from life.. what about alcohol, I don't doubt that people would say that binge drinking is an attempt to escape, get away from the real world. I know when I was 19 I was drinking heavily because for one night a week I could be who I wanted to be, not who I thought I was. If alcohol was half as addictive as heroin, I could have just thrown my life away. If laws are to protect vulnerable people from making mistakes, I see this one as working

[Nibor]

As for the point on people not taking heroin just because its there, and using it as an escape from life.. what about alcohol, I don't doubt that people would say that binge drinking is an attempt to escape, get away from the real world. I know when I was 19 I was drinking heavily because for one night a week I could be who I wanted to be, not who I thought I was. If alcohol was half as addictive as heroin, I could have just thrown my life away. If laws are to protect vulnerable people from making mistakes, I see this one as working

You really are clutching at straws now.

What on earth has the UK's culture of binge drinking got to do with heroin? Absolutely nothing at all. The fact that you liked going out and getting pissed once a week when you were 19 is utterly irrelevant to whether drugs should be de-criminalized.

It isn't like people don't know the difference between the two.

The law does not protect anybody at the moment, it does not stop people making mistakes, it just prevents them from getting any help and puts them and those around them at much increased risk.

[94th Minute]

You really are clutching at straws now.

What on earth has the UK's culture of binge drinking got to do with heroin? Absolutely nothing at all. The fact that you liked going out and getting pissed once a week when you were 19 is utterly irrelevant to whether drugs should be de-criminalized.

It isn't like people don't know the difference between the two.

The law does not protect anybody at the moment, it does not stop people making mistakes, it just prevents them from getting any help and puts them and those around them at much increased risk.

I'm sorry I failed to notice people falling into admittance that they've been overwhelmed by the argument that drugs should be legalized. Maybe I should just quit now

I don't think its an irrelevant point in the slightest, its what scientists do all the time, look at relevant data already there, and use it to make assumptions about the possible impact of something else. It was quite clear where you were going with the point.. we might as well legalise heroin, it is a drug of use by only the down and outs of this world. They have no jobs, and therefore have all spent the time actively seeking out heroin, the only thing a change in the law would cause is increased safety for those already using, a decrease in the deaths caused by the drugs trade. Its all rainbows and smiley puppies!

Its just not that simple. You would have laws passed down regulating it by now if that was the case; we have 62 million people in the country who would be affected by this law change, 62 million people who would look to it as another way out, another 62 million people who would see it as a 'safe fix'. Thats an absolute and utter catastrophe waiting to happen.

As 'deniers' have been left to clutch at straws in the overwhelming argument 'no one more would take it, its all cool' I've come up with a way for the government to head their press release

'Its still as dangerous as guns, but now its legal'

[Nibor]

I'm sorry I failed to notice people falling into admittance that they've been overwhelmed by the argument that drugs should be legalized. Maybe I should just quit now

I don't think its an irrelevant point in the slightest, its what scientists do all the time, look at relevant data already there, and use it to make assumptions about the possible impact of something else. It was quite clear where you were going with the point.. we might as well legalise heroin, it is a drug of use by only the down and outs of this world. They have no jobs, and therefore have all spent the time actively seeking out heroin, the only thing a change in the law would cause is increased safety for those already using, a decrease in the deaths caused by the drugs trade. Its all rainbows and smiley puppies!

Its just not that simple. You would have laws passed down regulating it by now if that was the case; we have 62 million people in the country who would be affected by this law change, 62 million people who would look to it as another way out, another 62 million people who would see it as a 'safe fix'. Thats an absolute and utter catastrophe waiting to happen.

As 'deniers' have been left to clutch at straws in the overwhelming argument 'no one more would take it, its all cool' I've come up with a way for the government to head their press release

'Its still as dangerous as guns, but now its legal'

No it isn't. What scientists do is make a hypothesis and test it using empirical measures. You seem to have confused them with journalists.

You are completely ignoring all the evidence that is available from countries with more relaxed laws and enforcement policies, they have LOWER heroin use and LOWER death rates. How does that support your theory that decriminalization means more users?

What supports your crazy idea that people will forget the dangers of drugs and flock to a GP to get free heroin to escape their lives as soon as it's legal? (Like the law is stopping them now - )

How about headlines for the press release for the "make drug users criminals" campaign you're in favour of?

I can think of several:

"It doesn't work but what the hell, it keeps us busy"

"Drugs, a final solution: Kill more junkies through neglect!"

"Attacking the symptoms, ignoring the causes"

"Idiotic drugs laws: Why the police have no time to investigate your burgled home"

[Mr Mosquito]

An interesting point I hadn't previously considered; whist some of these works were produced under the influence of absinthe which has more previously been shown to have no added drug effect over strong alcohol content (but it is good stuff, there's something going on there I'm sure). Some of these must have been carried out on drugs which could have seriously damaged their health.

In Louis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' the caterpillar sitting on the mushroom is smoking opium. In Louis Carroll's time, opium was still considered socially acceptable and was widely used throughout England, especially by intellectuals seeking inspiration. The reason the caterpillar was so languid and slow in his speaking was because opium is a stupification agent, it makes you very, very relaxed and sleepy. This is also probably why he doesn't make any sense and just mumbles nonsense phrases.

[94th Minute]

No it isn't. What scientists do is make a hypothesis and test it using empirical measures. You seem to have confused them with journalists.

You are completely ignoring all the evidence that is available from countries with more relaxed laws and enforcement policies, they have LOWER heroin use and LOWER death rates. How does that support your theory that decriminalization means more users?

What supports your crazy idea that people will forget the dangers of drugs and flock to a GP to get free heroin to escape their lives as soon as it's legal? (Like the law is stopping them now - )

How about headlines for the press release for the "make drug users criminals" campaign you're in favour of?

I can think of several:

"It doesn't work but what the hell, it keeps us busy"

"Drugs, a final solution: Kill more junkies through neglect!"

"Attacking the symptoms, ignoring the causes"

"Idiotic drugs laws: Why the police have no time to investigate your burgled home"

Having worked in industry for a year, yes scientists do have to look at data that's already been collected, try and find something useful in it, find a trend that may be relevant for the cause their investigating. Quite commonplace within science trying to make assumptions about something you have little or no data on. Journalists tend to take the data and take their own interesting slant on it, based not what it shows, but more what they want to perceive it as. Seems to be a tactic you're quite fond of with this 'other countries' nonsense.

Firstly please if you are going to talk about this figures back them up with the official numbers, an estimate of numbers, or some idea what these countries are, and how in any way shape or form we can expect to interpret their data to be relevant to our country.

Alcohol is an addictive drug, it is abused by people in their masses in the UK, whilst in European countries it is consumed sensibly, I take this to be good proof that figures cannot be easily translated between many countries. Sorry for my sheer unrivaled ignorance, but which country recently made herion legal and saw no increased use. The one I can think of is Holland, where drug use seems to be rife, people from the UK go there to use drugs; I think making any addictive substance legal is a dangerous, and shouldn't be done.. show me proof contrary to it

As for the headlines, lovely finishing touch, what you're missing is I have in no way said that drug laws are perfect, I said they need to be changed: Police are being told not to arrest on the scene of a heroin overdose to stop the problem of these people not getting attention. Surely a tactic of ignoring the symptoms of drug related problems would be to make it available to all? Give everyone heroin if they want it, the money we save not policing we can spend picking up the dead bodies, and we'll still turn a profit

As for "Idiotic drugs laws: Why the police have no time to investigate your burgled home" true Daily Mail bull

[Nibor]

Having worked in industry for a year, yes scientists do have to look at data that's already been collected, try and find something useful in it, find a trend that may be relevant for the cause their investigating. Quite commonplace within science trying to make assumptions about something you have little or no data on. Journalists tend to take the data and take their own interesting slant on it, based not what it shows, but more what they want to perceive it as. Seems to be a tactic you're quite fond of with this 'other countries' nonsense.

Er no scientist makes conclusions in that manner. They might do that to identify the right areas to study. Anybody submitting that sort of research with conclusions attached to it for peer review would be ridiculed and rightly so. I'd have thought that you'd have learned that inside a year if you're working in any actual scientific environment, after all it's part of GCSE level science...

Firstly please if you are going to talk about this figures back them up with the official numbers, an estimate of numbers, or some idea what these countries are, and how in any way shape or form we can expect to interpret their data to be relevant to our country.

Have you not read the rest of the thread? The information is discussed, google it.

Alcohol is an addictive drug, it is abused by people in their masses in the UK, whilst in European countries it is consumed sensibly, I take this to be good proof that figures cannot be easily translated between many countries. Sorry for my sheer unrivaled ignorance, but which country recently made herion legal and saw no increased use. The one I can think of is Holland, where drug use seems to be rife, people from the UK go there to use drugs; I think making any addictive substance legal is a dangerous, and shouldn't be done.. show me proof contrary to it

Alcohol is NOT physically addictive and has no place whatsoever in any serious debate about class A substances. It is psychologically addictive and alcohol abuse is a social issue which is why drinking patterns vary in difference countries with different cultures.

Apology accepted. If you read what was posted you will see we are talking about both LAW and ENFORCEMENT policy. Countries with more relaxed enforcement - effectively decriminalizing personal use like Holland - can have more recreational users of the softer drugs like cannabis. They have less users per capita of harder drugs, and far fewer problem users. The hypothesis is that the relaxed environment and approach takes away the forbidden fruit driver and that the resources spent on education are higher. Seem reasonably well supported by observable fact. Have you been? It feels like a far healthier place than any UK town centre.

If you want an example of how decriminalization works - go read up on Portugal as suggested above. Their policy since 2001 is that people found in possession of personal use amounts of drugs are referred for treatment (which can be refused) and not prosecuted. Since then, drug use in kids and teenagers, and addiction rates across the board have fallen across the board by as much as half. They've seen HIV infections from needle sharing drop, soft drug use drop, and the number of addicts in treatment go from about 6k to 14k with higher success rates.

They are addressing the problem at root cause level and saving lives and making the country a better place to live as a result. You are advocating a blind ultra conservative line proven to fail that costs lives based on whim. Unless your gut feeling based on your experience binge drinking at 19 is better evidence?

As for the headlines, lovely finishing touch, what you're missing is I have in no way said that drug laws are perfect, I said they need to be changed: Police are being told not to arrest on the scene of a heroin overdose to stop the problem of these people not getting attention. Surely a tactic of ignoring the symptoms of drug related problems would be to make it available to all? Give everyone heroin if they want it, the money we save not policing we can spend picking up the dead bodies, and we'll still turn a profit

As for "Idiotic drugs laws: Why the police have no time to investigate your burgled home" true Daily Mail bull

In countries like ours with dumb legal policies on drugs all we ever do is address the SYMPTOM. That's why the problem re-occurs. The causes, the social issues that lead to drug use, are not addressed by the government. They are addressed only by charities. You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. Try reading what I've actually suggested.

Or better yet, how about you suggest some change that might actually improve the current shit state of affairs?

Daily Mail bull? How can you possibly mistake my point of view for the hard right one the Daily Mail would take...?

[Flaxbourton Red]

[Mr Mosquito]

Alcohol is an addictive drug, it is abused by people in their masses in the UK, whilst in European countries it is consumed sensibly, I take this to be good proof that figures cannot be easily translated between many countries.

Interestingly, there was a study done on an island where monkeys were pinching drinks from around a hotel. These monkeys were studied by scientists, some of the monkeys were tee total and only pinched non alcohol drinks, most enjoyed a tipple at holiday makers' expense but some - a small percentage - got paralytically drunk every day. The proportion of alcohol use/abuse exactly mirrored that of the general human population where drink is available !!!!! Another study showed that American Vietnam veterans had a serious drug abuse problem in Vietnam but their addiction disappeared when they got back to the USA.

Thus addiction can be linked to genetics, availability and adverse environment. What seems clear is that if the likes of heroin is legalized the authorities will be picking up a lot more bodies of those that have an addictive personality.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Thus addiction can be linked to genetics, availability and adverse environment. What seems clear is that if the likes of heroin is legalized the authorities will be picking up a lot more bodies of those that have an addictive personality.

can you explain why you think using heroin will kill you?

[Mr Mosquito]

can you explain why you think using heroin will kill you?

As other posters have explained already - it's often cut with far more dangerous substances. Heroin also has mind altering effects. Please study the diagram below.....

[94th Minute]

Er no scientist makes conclusions in that manner. They might do that to identify the right areas to study. Anybody submitting that sort of research with conclusions attached to it for peer review would be ridiculed and rightly so. I'd have thought that you'd have learned that inside a year if you're working in any actual scientific environment, after all it's part of GCSE level science...

Have you not read the rest of the thread? The information is discussed, google it.

Alcohol is NOT physically addictive and has no place whatsoever in any serious debate about class A substances. It is psychologically addictive and alcohol abuse is a social issue which is why drinking patterns vary in difference countries with different cultures.

Apology accepted. If you read what was posted you will see we are talking about both LAW and ENFORCEMENT policy. Countries with more relaxed enforcement - effectively decriminalizing personal use like Holland - can have more recreational users of the softer drugs like cannabis. They have less users per capita of harder drugs, and far fewer problem users. The hypothesis is that the relaxed environment and approach takes away the forbidden fruit driver and that the resources spent on education are higher. Seem reasonably well supported by observable fact. Have you been? It feels like a far healthier place than any UK town centre.

If you want an example of how decriminalization works - go read up on Portugal as suggested above. Their policy since 2001 is that people found in possession of personal use amounts of drugs are referred for treatment (which can be refused) and not prosecuted. Since then, drug use in kids and teenagers, and addiction rates across the board have fallen across the board by as much as half. They've seen HIV infections from needle sharing drop, soft drug use drop, and the number of addicts in treatment go from about 6k to 14k with higher success rates.

They are addressing the problem at root cause level and saving lives and making the country a better place to live as a result. You are advocating a blind ultra conservative line proven to fail that costs lives based on whim. Unless your gut feeling based on your experience binge drinking at 19 is better evidence?

In countries like ours with dumb legal policies on drugs all we ever do is address the SYMPTOM. That's why the problem re-occurs. The causes, the social issues that lead to drug use, are not addressed by the government. They are addressed only by charities. You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. Try reading what I've actually suggested.

Or better yet, how about you suggest some change that might actually improve the current shit state of affairs?

Daily Mail bull? How can you possibly mistake my point of view for the hard right one the Daily Mail would take...?

Ok first can I say that was a very good reply, and a pleasure to read. Sorry for accusing you of writing a daily mail esque headline, it seemed to be blaming all crime and the polices inadequacies on drug users.. with hindsight a daily mail headline would have definitely used the word scum. Sorry.

I believed that to be the point I was making regarding scientific work. A paper comes out, conclusions drawn from it are what inspires the future research into the subject; now if that's by the author of the paper, or by another researcher I see it as the same thing. I personally see the technicalities as being unimportant. The main point I was trying to make is that when all we have to look at is data from our own country we can't hope to draw complete comparisons, sometimes we need to investigate trends in less addictive substances.

I apologize if you are more recently out of education than me, though I doubt it based on the stance you took regarding binge drinking, but I regret to inform you GCSE science no longer teaches you anything, I knew it was a waste of my time whist taking it, A levels weren't too much better, analative skills aren't something I learnt till I was at uni

It's my belief that culture plays a far greater role in response to law changes than its being given credit for. I'll admit I don't know about the ins and outs of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, and I've never been to Amsterdam; but I draw few similarities between them and here. I can see the point that drug use in Amsterdam has made it a far more relaxed place, its one of the things that cannabis does. However why currently are UK town centres not feeling as healthy? I can't believe you're suggesting that humans need to be on cannabis to make an area relaxed.. the only conclusion I can draw is that its a problem that the UK town centres feel unhealthy rather than Amsterdam's feeling healthy?

I don't agree with the forbidden fruit idea. I don't think (and I have no background in psychology to back this up) that the instinct to do something because it is forbidden is a trait of the middle of the bell curve. I don't think that if you criminalize chocolate you'd see a huge increase in the amount eaten, however remove driving speed limits and average speeds on the roads would increase. I can fully accecpt that you may disagree with this but, people are idiots who will, the majority of the time, do anything if they percieve it to be for their personal gain; they also rely on authority to tell them whats right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that 1st July heroin and cocaine are decriminalized, 2nd July 4.3 million new drug addicts in the country; I think it would be a slower, yet just as inevitable slide towards a drug dependant population (not the whole population being drug dependant)

Despite you mocking of the concept that binge drinking is a vaild point of consideration in this case, I'll continue with it. I can see few better examples of the differences between our culture and others within Europe with more relaxed drug policies. Why does binge drinking occur here and yet seems to be hardly noticeable as a problem in many other parts of the world? I think its all down to differences in perceptions of whats safe and whats accecptable, it seems to be accecptable in many regions of the UK to do nothing all day and live off money for nothing (namely student areas.. hahaha; NO!), it seems safe to binge drink despite GPs conclusive proof against it; should we really be trusted with hard drugs

Alcohol is not something which has a physical dependance, it is however psychology addictive.. there is no such phonomonon as a drug being physically addictive. Its input to an addictive centre of the brain to which the body responds favourably, favourable responses are attempted to be repeated by the body with craves more of the substance (thereby completing my perception of psychological dependence; a very poorly understood scientific feild). The brain is clever it knows what happened to make you feel like it, and so you want a bit more. Its all in the mind, its all psychological. Physical dependence is, I believe, the result of tolerance; give the body enough heroin and it down regulates opoid receptors to counteract the abnormally high levels, stop taking it and the body goes into withdrawal, opoid receptors aren't present in high enough concentrations to respond to endogenous opiates, and you feel the oposite of what heroin provided: pain, dysphoria, loads of horrible things

The addictiveness of a substance is basically its input into the ventral tegmental area of the brain, the 'reward centre' alcohol has less input there than heroin, so it is less addictive, but this doesn't mean it isn't addictive at all, no not at all, if anything it reinforeces its importance in this discussion, a substance which is about 3 leagues below heroin as far as addictiveness goes, and yet still causes millions of premature deaths every year. It would be outrageous to suggest that a nation which cannot handle its fixation with alcohol could possibly be ready for harder drugs

I'm confused how exactly this policy is anymore supposed to be saving lives. First off it was proposed as a legalization of drugs, where the substances would be handled by the GPs, provided by the NHS at cost, the drugs would be clean and cheap enough for drug addicts to use safely and not cheap enough so the don't have to steal or rob to get money (which I strongly disagree would work). The equlivent of being happy to let a child play with a bonfire in the front garden.. except you don't want them to be unsupervised incase a peadophile turns up. The NHS buying all its poppy seeds fair trade should have stamped out the problem of gun crime, but now under the 'decriminalization' it would still be sold on the streets, still got in the same way; just we'd be giving it the green light

I honestly can't argue with the point on HIV infections decreasing, about increased admissions to rehab clinics; I imagine these are acheived through needle swap programs and a reduced fear of prosecution when seeking help. Is a decriminalization of drugs really required to achieve this though? Could it not be done with some common sense.

To reitterate my initial point, I am totally against the legalization of drugs, not against law changes to update our stance to accecpt we have a problem. A law where drugs are outlawed with punnishment for those taking denies the addictive nature of these substances, those starting these substances are criminals, those propergatting the habbit out of unwilful neccessity need our help

[94th Minute]

can you explain why you think using heroin will kill you?

As other posters have explained already - it's often cut with far more dangerous substances. Heroin also has mind altering effects. Please study the diagram below.....

I would have to disagree with the argument its cut with more dangerous substances, this is a minor cause of death, the major one being polydrug abuse, alcohol and benzos as the precise culprits

Then I'm sure there a steady stream of euphoria related deaths too if you want to go down the road of direct heroin effects

Respiratory depression would probably be the short answer though

[Flaxbourton Red]

I would have to disagree with the argument its cut with more dangerous substances, this is a minor cause of death, the major one being polydrug abuse, alcohol and benzos as the precise culprits

Then I'm sure there a steady stream of euphoria related deaths too if you want to go down the road of direct heroin effects

Respiratory depression would probably be the short answer though

this is an issue about safe using rather than a matter for the crown prosecution service. Why not make opiod antagonists more available? Respiratory depression would usually occur from taking too much and this is more a result of inconsistencies in the supply. A safe steady consistant non-injectable supply availbe from your GP would reduce many of the risks associated with heroin overnight.

[94th Minute]

this is an issue about safe using rather than a matter for the crown prosecution service. Why not make opiod antagonists more available? Respiratory depression would usually occur from taking too much and this is more a result of inconsistencies in the supply. A safe steady consistant non-injectable supply availbe from your GP would reduce many of the risks associated with heroin overnight.

Ok, I am getting bored of reiterating the point, it is not common belief that heroin alone is a mega killer, it is not belief that impurities in the supply are the problem either (in most cases the amounts of quinine detected (the impurity) are below clinical levels (a paper I'll state at the end of the post) Alcohol is the main killer, along with benzodiazapines when mixed to excess. Cleaning up an unproblematic supply will do nothing

Yes I fully agree with the point about making opoid antagonists available, I can't see any reason they should not be available from the GP, they're not exactly going to be abused; but again its no reason for a legalization, or even a decriminalization

Here's a paper which is available to read without a subscription to any of the journals if you don't believe me

http://www.carmha.ca/SIAPH2008/readings/do...6.Addiction.pdf

[Mr Mosquito]

I would have to disagree with the argument its cut with more dangerous substances, this is a minor cause of death,

I once worked with a reformed heroin user. He told me that his friend died because he injected heroin that was found after to have been cut with pollyfilla powder. He survived because he smoked his heroin that came from the same batch. He initially started taking heroin to ease the pain he suffered as the result of an industrial injury.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Ok, I am getting bored of reiterating the point, it is not common belief that heroin alone is a mega killer, it is not belief that impurities in the supply are the problem either (in most cases the amounts of quinine detected (the impurity) are below clinical levels (a paper I'll state at the end of the post) Alcohol is the main killer, along with benzodiazapines when mixed to excess. Cleaning up an unproblematic supply will do nothing

Yes I fully agree with the point about making opoid antagonists available, I can't see any reason they should not be available from the GP, they're not exactly going to be abused; but again its no reason for a legalization, or even a decriminalization

Here's a paper which is available to read without a subscription to any of the journals if you don't believe me

http://www.carmha.ca/SIAPH2008/readings/do...6.Addiction.pdf

don't disagree with much of that, but I do think many people such as blue goblin, think that heroin alone does kill. This is not true.

The supply IS problematic; you can't guarantee what you are buying and if you've spent your money on weak rubbish it's understandable that you will try to augment what you have with other substances.

I'd also argue that the money we waste on prohibition policing could be better used to promote public health education, awareness, safer usage and increase access to detox programmes.

[Barrs Court Red]

All that is pointless when our rehabilitation programmes put addicts/ ex addicts straight back into the very community that they need protecting from/removing from so that they can avoid taking up old habbits.

The education regarding drugs is fine = Drugs are bad, certain ones will **** up your life. It tends to work. Everyone post 16 tends to caine the puff for a few months, a few years later get into trying class A's and then move on with their life. The unfortuante few get addictions to unpleasant nastys. I would love to know what goes through a first timers head, when they're about to inject something like crack. Or more likely, smoke it.

There's an interesting book called "Gangs", where the auther tries both crack cocaine and heroin.

But anyways, I see this thread has descended into Gobblin baiting, yawn.

[Flaxbourton Red]

All that is pointless when our rehabilitation programmes put addicts/ ex addicts straight back into the very community that they need protecting from/removing from so that they can avoid taking up old habbits.

The education regarding drugs is fine = Drugs are bad, certain ones will **** up your life. It tends to work. Everyone post 16 tends to caine the puff for a few months, a few years later get into trying class A's and then move on with their life. The unfortuante few get addictions to unpleasant nastys. I would love to know what goes through a first timers head, when they're about to inject something like crack. Or more likely, smoke it.

There's an interesting book called "Gangs", where the auther tries both crack cocaine and heroin.

you'd rather we locked em all up and throw away the key? maybe we could hang em and flog em too.

I'd say the education about substance use in this country is poor, just like sex education.

The prudish middle classes with their simplistic reactionary daily mail approach to wrapping children up in cotton wool whilst harking back to the 1950s. Don't teach children about drugs or sex, don't give them MMR etc

[Nibor]

Basically we're not going to agree because you fundamentally believe more people will do drugs if they're decriminalized and I don't because the evidence contradicts that.

However I'll make a few other points for you to think about.

It's my belief that culture plays a far greater role in response to law changes than its being given credit for.

Very possible IMO. And for me that's a big part of what legalization and education is about - engendering cultural change from "the government tells me what is right" to "I am well informed and have a responsibility to make up my own mind".

How do you change a culture? I'd suggest by education, and in terms of education on drugs and alcohol we are absolutely shit at it compared to other european nations. Which is why in my first post on this thread I suggested that is one place the saved money would be best spent. You certainly don't change a culture for the better by draconian law.

However why currently are UK town centres not feeling as healthy? I can't believe you're suggesting that humans need to be on cannabis to make an area relaxed.. the only conclusion I can draw is that its a problem that the UK town centres feel unhealthy rather than Amsterdam's feeling healthy?

I certainly am not suggesting it's cannabis that makes the town centre of Amsterdam feel relaxed. It is the culture. The Dutch have a very live and let live attitude - people can do what they like as long as they don't affect others but when they do affect others that is treated much more harshly. What it gives is a stronger sense of personal responsibility in the average person, and that is why you do not see the town centre strewn with vomit piles, half eaten kebabs and piss covered drunks.

I don't agree with the forbidden fruit idea. I don't think (and I have no background in psychology to back this up) that the instinct to do something because it is forbidden is a trait of the middle of the bell curve.

Consider that most statistics refer to either age groupings or lifetime use. People do not stay in the same place on your bell curve of presumably "tendency to be a ********" for their lifespans. Teenagers with all the mood swings, peer pressure and general angst are always outliers in the sense of stability - forbidden fruit applies far more at this vulnerable age than to the same person 10 years later.

Why does binge drinking occur here and yet seems to be hardly noticeable as a problem in many other parts of the world?

I believe you will find something in common between all the nations with serious alcohol related problems - and that is a tougher legislative approach with higher age limits and licensing. Countries with more relaxed policies to alcohol like most Latin ones tend to have less problems with alcoholism, alcohol related crime, and anti-social behaviour.

Let's put it this way - what does a teenager in the UK do on a Friday night? Buy 6 cans of Diamond White from the dodgiest offy they can find and sit in the park with their mates thinking they're billy big bollocks because they can drink, get lashed, puke up and try and make it home without getting caught. What does your average teenager in Spain or France do? Drink a glass or two of wine sitting outside a cafe with friends, switch to coffee, bugger off home. Try spending some time in Lisbon, Paris or the like and you will see the relaxed attitude towards alcohol is a big part of why they don't have anywhere near as much of a binge drinking problem.

I'm confused how exactly this policy is anymore supposed to be saving lives. First off it was proposed as a legalization of drugs, where the substances would be handled by the GPs, provided by the NHS at cost, the drugs would be clean and cheap enough for drug addicts to use safely and not cheap enough so the don't have to steal or rob to get money (which I strongly disagree would work).

Why wouldn't it? Ask any copper what percentage of burglars or muggers are addicts... desperation to pay for a hit drives this crime and often dealers double as fences.

The equlivent of being happy to let a child play with a bonfire in the front garden.. except you don't want them to be unsupervised incase a peadophile turns up. The NHS buying all its poppy seeds fair trade should have stamped out the problem of gun crime, but now under the 'decriminalization' it would still be sold on the streets, still got in the same way; just we'd be giving it the green light

I really don't understand what you mean here, the sale of these drugs on the street would be impossible because there is no profit to be made when you can get them for cost from the NHS. At the moment the street dealer is making anything from five to twenty times the money they put up depending on the volume they buy.

I honestly can't argue with the point on HIV infections decreasing, about increased admissions to rehab clinics; I imagine these are acheived through needle swap programs and a reduced fear of prosecution when seeking help. Is a decriminalization of drugs really required to achieve this though? Could it not be done with some common sense.

These schemes already operated before decriminalization as they do in the UK now. Clearly more lives can be saved.

To reitterate my initial point, I am totally against the legalization of drugs, not against law changes to update our stance to accecpt we have a problem. A law where drugs are outlawed with punnishment for those taking denies the addictive nature of these substances, those starting these substances are criminals, those propergatting the habbit out of unwilful neccessity need our help

Your position seems to me to be based on lots of guesswork about how people would react and fear that a lot of people would try drugs if they were legal despite the increased education and removal of the forbidden fruit temptation. You have very little confidence in people's ability to make their own decisions.

I think people by and large can sort their own shit out and the government should only be legislating for actions that affect others, not limiting choices an adult makes. I think that the government should focus on what has been if not proven to work, what has at least been shown to have a chance of working (education, decriminalization, support) instead of prohibition and enforcement which have been proven quite comprehensively not to work anywhere in the world.

I've been fairly privileged to spend a lot of time working around Europe in different cities thanks to my job and frankly it's very disappointing to see how far behind my own country is in some thinking. I'd be interested to see how similar experiences would affect your views.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Nibor, that is a very well argued post.

[Barrs Court Red]

you'd rather we locked em all up and throw away the key? maybe we could hang em and flog em too.

I'd say the education about substance use in this country is poor, just like sex education.

The prudish middle classes with their simplistic reactionary daily mail approach to wrapping children up in cotton wool whilst harking back to the 1950s. Don't teach children about drugs or sex, don't give them MMR etc

Well done, you've missed the point, what a suprise. It begs the question, what work have you done with addicts? Surely you'd know one of the greatest problem isn't the rehab, it isn't the treatment, but the fact that when someone goes through all of that, they come straight back out into the same underclass community in the shelters and parks, the same peer pressure and the same threats

Often the people that get into heroin or crack are vunerable, no amount of education will change this fact..

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1308.pdf

interestingly drug use is falling, and the amounts of people taking a chemicle substance likely to cause addiction just isn't that big.

[Nibor]

Well done, you've missed the point, what a suprise. It begs the question, what work have you done with addicts? Surely you'd know one of the greatest problem isn't the rehab, it isn't the treatment, but the fact that when someone goes through all of that, they come straight back out into the same underclass community in the shelters and parks, the same peer pressure and the same threats

Often the people that get into heroin or crack are vunerable, no amount of education will change this fact..

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1308.pdf

interestingly drug use is falling, and the amounts of people taking a chemicle substance likely to cause addiction just isn't that big.

Yes, that's what happens - criminalising them contributes massively to that.

The only way most get help or treatment is after being convicted of a couple of hundred burglaries at the end of their prison time.

If you make the drugs available with support at cost addicts don't need massive and increasing amounts of cash and they come to the attention of support services before they end up breaking the law.