Hanging Too Good For Him?

[xoggoth]

OI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m the oldest on the board! I have been dead for several years I will have you know.

[xoggoth]

If you legalise drugs, who will buy them for the inadequate individuals who are the main users? They either have to be provided by the taxpayer or they will be provided from the proceeds of crime.

Legalising drugs might make sense in conjunction with welfare rules that make no provision whatever for drug costs and sentencing rules that make drug addiction a major exacerbating factor in any crime committed to pay for them. After all, alcohol consumption is not illegal but sentencing for drunk drivers who cause accidents is rightly much stiffer than it is for those who are simply careless.

That way we respect freedom of choice for recreational drug users who pay their own way in life while discouraging use by the feckless who are just looking for another escape from their inadequacy.

And no, I do not care if their inadequacy is their fault or not. I fully accept that some people have really crap starts in life but we need practical policies that put risk to society first.

[Stan.goodvibes]

Traffickers are scum bags and should be given life.

traffickers are the result of a free market economy. They are simply supplying an unregulated market, meeting a demand - the ultimate expression of freemarket capitalisation.

I had a thoroughly great time with recreational drugs when i was in the UK. I am eternally grateful to those people who supplied them to me, who were, on the whole, reasonable guys trying to make a living.

My ire rests on the govt for making me a criminal simply because i wanted to consume some drugs that weren't on their list of 'approved' drugs from the Big Pharma companies that are in their pockets.

The drug laws have *nothing* to do with protecting people and everything to do with ensuring that the party 'donations' from Big Pharma and the Alcohol industry continue to flow.

[NickFitz]

It used to be the UK's policy to provide addicts with pharmaceutical-grade heroin (which is still prescribed on a regular basis in the public and private health services of this country under the name "diamorphine" for controlling pain) as a way of dealing with the problem of addiction.

Throughout the world, Britain was regarded as an enlightened nation that averted the social problems related to addiction (in particular increased crime levels due to addicts feeding their habits) by bringing the problem of addiction under the control of health services. Drug law enforcement officers in countries such as the US argued for the adoption of the "British Model" as the most effective way of reducing heroin-addiction-related-crime.

In those days, many heroin addicts in the UK held down regular jobs - heroin addiction doesn't actually interfere with your ability to do something useful, if you have something useful to do. Of course some smack leaked out onto the streets, where prohibition laws still empowered an illicit market - rather like the way twelve-year-olds don't seem to find it hard to get hold of bottles of vodka nowadays.

There was hardly any heroin-addiction-related-crime then.

But one administration decided, on the basis of prejudice rather than scientific evidence, to put a stop to that. Since then, much petty crime has been caused by the need of heroin addicts to fuel their habits. Some who had been useful, contributing members of society were forced to abandon the lives they'd built up and head back to the streets.

(Think about it: how many people with whom you have worked would, if alcohol was to be made illegal tomorrow, be unable to continue their daily lives for the sake of finding a drink - the ones who never show any sign of having a problem, who can always do an excellent job... but without their three bottles of wine, or bottle of vodka, at home of an evening would be left climbing up the walls. There are more of them than you think.)

If I remember correctly, the change was made around 1979 - 1980. (It might have been as late as 1981.) Still, you can probably guess whose fault it was that many years of useful progress in dealing with the undeniable social issues created by the problem of heroin addiction were thrown in the bin to satisfy the prejudices of Daily Mail readers.

I blame the Daily Mail readers... and their Goddess.

[expat]

It used to be the UK's policy to provide addicts with pharmaceutical-grade heroin (which is still prescribed on a regular basis in the public and private health services of this country under the name "diamorphine" for controlling pain) as a way of dealing with the problem of addiction.

Throughout the world, Britain was regarded as an enlightened nation ...
But one administration decided, on the basis of prejudice rather than scientific evidence, to put a stop to that. Since then, much petty crime has been caused by the need of heroin addicts to fuel their habits....
(Think about it: how many people with whom you have worked would, if alcohol was to be made illegal tomorrow, be unable to continue their daily lives for the sake of finding a drink - the ones who never show any sign of having a problem, who can always do an excellent job... but without their three bottles of wine, or bottle of vodka, at home of an evening would be left climbing up the walls. There are more of them than you think.)...
I blame the Daily Mail readers... and their Goddess.

Can we have a new award for posts too thoughtful for this board?