Thursday no-brainer....

"would reduce"

I'd maintain that some addicts could not hold down jobs so would still
turn to crime in order to buy legaliased drugs.

 

That's it, Rob! Let's just call drugs something else altogether and
the problem will mysteriously disappear. )

 

Doubtful, but maybe "addicts" could be called "terrorists". That could
work.

 

Crack - yes.

My original reservation was perhaps hastily composed, however, I maintain my
belief that Government supply/control of drugs equates with condoning drug
taking. I recognise that theoretically and intellectually there could be a
distinction drawn between the two, but in reality I believe this distinction
would remain a theoretical one.

My next reservation is that there is a wide range of Class A/B/C drugs some
of which have long-term hallucinogenic effects (LSD etc) some are highly
addictive (crack) etc. A couple of questions that arise from this:

- which drugs would the Government have under controlled distribution: some
or all?

- if only the benign drugs are offered, would this in reality effect the
supply of the other drugs?

- can the government be justified supplying mind-altering drugs such as LSD?

One final thought - aren't heroin users already covered on the NHS by an
alternative called Methadone?

 

That's a fair point, but I was ranting.

 

<ducks>

 

this isn't a board, it's a Newsgroup.

HTH.

 

.... but where is organised crime going to get it's money from?
It can only lead to these criminals turning to crime. ...

 

AndrewR

Well, it's almost as difficult to calculate the 'correct' intake of
a drug of known purity, in particular such potent drugs.

All of the activities you mentioned are, although dangerous, not
inherently damaging to a person at every instance performed.
A single injection of heroin will damage your body. If you would
have compared it to alcohol and cigarettes, it would have been a
more appropriate comparison. Although, alcohol is debatable as
beneficial effects have been proven.

Which, didn't injure you, unless you crash it.

So you're more aware that _if_ you crash it, you will be hurt.

 

No, the money necessary will be 'generated' through different crime.

Well, drugs such as heroin are addictive, it has bugger all to do if they
are regulated or un-regulated.

Ask a smack-head, and I did, if he's there because it's the pleasure
of doing something forbidden.

NHS load, from ODs on cut heroin to ODs on uncut heroin. Do you really think
somebody with an heroin habit does not need to continually increase the
dosis
to recieve the same effect, until the body can't cope anymore? Further I
believe
only a small proportion of OD are caused by contaminations. So I don't know
for
sure and will try to look it up.

Successrates of ex-smokers is considerably higher than ex-smackheads. Again
I will
try to back this up with comparable stats.

 

Methadone takes care of the physical craving for smack but I don't
believe it gives a satisfactory experience; it's used for weaning people
off rather than substituting long term.

 

So crime activities generate money to setup other criminal enterprises?

How's that different from "the drug trade generates large profits for
organised crime; these are then often used to fund other criminal
activites"?

The very fact that the distribution is 'underground' has led to them
being 'pushed'.

Ask other smack heads, and former smack heads, why they started taking
drugs and for some of them it would be because they were illegal.

A lot of the shite that drugs are cut with- brick dust for colouring,
baby laxitive / chalk for bulk etc. etc. are likely to cause severe
problems to your system- not necessarily OD problems- septecimia etc. (I
know it's spelt incorrectly).

I know several ex-heroin addicts. Many of them are now alcoholic and
almost all of them smoke.

 

You've also got to wonder where disorganised crime gets its money from, does
it simply hope to stumble across it.

 

And laws should be made on emotion? "I'm sorry but you make me feel
uncomfortable. So I'm going to throw you in jail for a long, long time"

Well - seeing as neither of the systems are working particularly
at the moment then I would say that the complete overhaul needed is
functionally equivalent to starting again..

And they don't at the moment? How much is spent in this country
on the control and elimination of illegal drugs?

At least their 'next fix' is less likely to land them in the morgue.
Or do you think it is acceptable that people who are hooked
on drugs have to rely on drug dealers for ensuring the purity
of their substances?

After all, these addicts would probably be addicts anyway and
it's a damn sight safer if they can go to the chemist
with a prescription for heroin rather than having to kill a grannie
to get the £50 in her handbag..

All of which applies under the current systm. Therefore the current
system is clearly not working. So if the Government steps
in and provides (either at cost or on prescription) the drugs
then how is that not an improvement?

High drug prices from illegal sources does not prevent drug
use. All that happens is more crime is committed in order
to pay for the drugs.

You show a breathtaking lack of understanding of history - that *has*
been tried time and time again.

I refer you the the US "War on drugs" which
is quite clearly not working.

And the result? Drugs still get in. Drugs adulterated with very
very dangerous substances get into the available pool and
people die from using them. Sometimes an extra-pure batch gets in a
addicts die from taking what they thought was their
normal dose. Would that happen if the content and purity of the drugs
was controlled by the Government?

But hey - they are only addict scum so who cares whether they die
right? Serves them right for being junkies eh?

And then a kid tries it and dies and suddenly it everyone starts
screaming about how "we need more control" in a typical knee-jerk
reaction.

Phil

 

I'm sure all the people that have been wrongly convicted of crimes
they didn't commit would share your blithe optimism in the powers
of the various justice systems round the world..

Because we don't have the right to take lives?

It's human nature.

And if the current deterrents don't stop people killing and raping do
you think that a potential death sentance will?

Cos if you do you must be living in a different world to the rest
of us.

Phil

 

Any deeper and he would be swimming in the Pacific..

Phil

 

Disorganised crime is actually more efficient than organised crime.
It's just that no fucker can remember where they put the swag which
makes it so prolific.

 

Hey! I know! Lets sterilise addicts so
they can't breed and produce new addicts!

Sorry? What was that? It's been tried before? 1940? Central Europe?
Didn't work?

Oh well..

I refer the honourable gentleman to the US where they have very harsh
penalties for drug-dealing. And drug-dealing is on the increase.

I also refer the HG to places like Thailand where
drug-dealing carries a mandatory death-penalty. And lots of
people get caught for drug-dealing. Surely they should be deterred by
the death sentance?

Have you asked them (using a emotion-neutral questionnaire)?
Unlike the current ones that ask questions like:

"If a crazed crack addict just killed you daughter
to get the money for his fix would you think that drugs were bad"?

Ban alcohol and tobacco! Just as many crimes (actually an order
of magnitude or two higher) are committed under the effect of alcohol
than are committed in order to buy drugs..

Phil

 

And have you ever been beaten up by someone high on cannabis
or heroin? No? Then from your *personal* record alcohol is more
danger than any of the illegal drugs..

And a *much* *much* bigger number than the number of addicts who
commit crimes to feed their habits..

Actually it can - the majority of drug users are 'recreational'
users. It's a very small minority that go on to be the typical
'junkie' that will do anything for their next fix.

Which doesn't square with your assertion about alcohol above. You
freely admit that there are many who go out and get liquored up and
then cause trouble.

Phil

 

See 'Mr Nice' by a guy called Howard Marks for details. He was the worlds
most wanted man for a long time 'cause he dealt in cannabis. Tons upon tons
of it worldwide.
He was in a South American (IIRC) country when he ran out of cash. He went
to the
local bank to organise a transfer from 'his bank in Britain' and the manager
said
something along the lines of
"why do you need to do that as you have 15 accounts here containing
$7million"