OllyK

As you have just said the pushers, push, they find kids, they offer them a freebie and some try it and get hooked. Even if it is legalised, the pushers will just keep seeking out new blood to sell to. They get hooked and move on to the legal drugs and the pushers go out and find more users.

I can see a vicious circle starting here, I can't see the dealers out there who make a lot of money from selling drugs just going "Oh well, heroin is legal now so we may as well go and get another job". There are plenty of "drug wars" going on between dealers for territory, how do you think they will view a "legal" outlet? Competition maybe?? And how do they usualy deal with that?? So now we have people selling legal drugs being targeted by those who want to maintain their profit margins by selling illegal drugs. Hope I am nowhere near when all this kicks off

Brendan Hughes

How much are coffeeshops bombed or attacked in the Netherlands?

OllyK

Thought we were discussing heroin and not puff?

Holland are re-thinking their liberalism towards drugs and clamping down on the amount that can be sold to an individual in a coffeeshop. If the legalisation was such a roaring success why have the humber of adicts increased and why are they looking to tighten things up again?

Katana

I say bring on the death penalty for heroin dealers. They are nothing but scum. Anyone who defends the use of heroin should be flogged in public..

Diesel

Just like to mention that driving under the influence is, err, illegal - be it puff, Malibu or government rationed H to stop my bloody house being burgled...!!! Lets not red herring the 'behind the wheel' thing.

I also really dont think there would be a queue for the 'brown' outside my GP were it made legal; most of us would not go NEAR the crap that it is; go figure methadone then - so legal dosing HAPPENS ALREADY??? It just needs to be more effective and less reactive/blinkered/ignorant middle class value driven IMHO.

OllyK

Providing you are under the limit, the Malibu is not illegal, you can argue that is wrong as well, but as things stand...

Katana

I've actually seen the effects of heroin first hand to someone close to me which I wont go into detail. I dont care what class you are, anyone who touches that sh*te are useless and should be deported to Cuba or something.

ProperCharlie

it's very difficult to generalise about drugs. i've used most of them myself, although i've never injected heroin. some people use drugs "recreationally" and never besome addicts. it's to do with their personality, their social circmstances and so on. some people will get into heroin and go off the rails within a few months. however i've known people who have usedit occasionally for years, without ever getting out of control. it's exactly the same with alcohol - some people like a drink now and then, some people get into a dependancy cycle that kills them over a few years, or many years. what i would say to people who think that keeping the illegal status is the way to go is: what does it acheive? it isn't hard to get hold of, it gives criminals massive profit motives to actively "market" the stuff; dealers commonly give away sml quantities of heroin to build up a demand for it. i just can't see how we benefit from prohibition.

OllyK

I think both camps have merit, but I don't think either will solve the problem. I doubt anything ever will, it needs massive investment in education and social change, and even then there will still be a minority who will choose to exist outside that.

ProperCharlie

i absolutely agree, but my point is - if people want to f*ck themselves up by shooting up heroin, why not let them get on with it in a way that doesn't create the problems of gangsters, muggings, burglaries etc? IMO if they could get their heroin from the state, we would save money and have a better society.

Brendan Hughes

Olly, your point was about territory wars. I don't know many places where heroin is provided by govt-licensed outlets, but I used coffeeshops as a parallel. Licensed outlets were established to take the place of criminal gangs who had been making massive profits, I don't believe the gangs created such a problem that you envisaged. I could be wrong, they were slightly different, they evolved over time. However, as I said, GPs in the UK prescribe heroin to about 450 patients, and methadone to a lot more. You don't see surgeries being bombed by disgruntled dealers, do you? You had a legitimate concern, I am trying to suggest that it is unlikely to happen.

The other quote you have about the Netherlands is massively misleading. Yes all the addicts have risen, but they've risen pretty much everywhere in the western world, whatever the policy - liberal, or War On Drugs like the US (where the prevalence of cannabis is something like three times that of in NL, despite the hard line enforcement). Heroin is also one of the smallest problems in the Netherlands - their addict population is aging, unlike in other countries where many new young recruits appear, and they have one of the lowest mortality rates per capita in the EU. Your article is written in aggressive language with no proportion or perspective; it's rhetoric, not reasoned, and not persuasive.

I don't like drug use, I don't touch the stuff, but I also don't like the disinformation that goes with it. There's a lot of that about.

OllyK

Trouble is what would follow on from that? Crack, Coke, E, Speed, Puff, Tabacco, Alcohol?? OK being a bit flippant, but Heroin is just a part of the problem.

OllyK

Brendan Hughes - fair points, still not convinced that legalisation would work any better than enforcement. Seems to always be the case, whenever there is a problem there are 2 solutions:
1) Come down on it hard
2) Legalise it
Think people need to start thinking outsdie the box and come up with some new ideas as neither seems to work convincingly.

Brendan Hughes

Olly, I think part of the problem is that there are many solutions but people, for one reason or another, automatically classify them as prohibitionist or liberalising, black or white, when they may be an acceptable shade of grey.

The trend in Europe over the past 10 years is increasing support for the "harm reduction" approach. No government will tell you their prohibition approach does not work, but nevertheless a number are less interested in criminalising users and more interested in minimising the harm that can come from drug use, whether we are talking overdoses, HIV transmission, public nuisance, etc. Previously they'd just jail anyone like that. So, is that a prohibitionist approach, or a liberal one? The Dutch and the Germans have introduced shooting rooms. Does it encourage people to take heroin, or does it reduce junkies hanging around parks, reduce people dying from overdoses, reduce spread of HIV through clean needles? They're trying, and they'll report back, but they seem quite happy so far. BTW, the UK introduced needle exchange quite early on, and I believe it's saved our health system a fortune from having to deal with an explosion in AIDS cases five years later - countries which refused to do that, as they said it would encourage drug use, are now paying dearly for it.

One thing I certainly agree with. There is a MASSIVE information campaign needed.

Diesel

Brendan/Charlie : very lucid, common sensical, illustrative and coherent postings guys. I really think that is an excellent example of pragmatic thinking and that 'outside the box' already. Yer Tory MP from Tunbridge Wells will always see devils though and that so clouds reasoning. Who suffers? The ordinary decent public...

I think that is the most persuasive argument possible to put - but, hey ho!!!

D

ProperCharlie

exactly.

this is often the problem - the daily mail can sell papers by shouting about how everything should be made illegal and everyone should be locked up, but that doesn't amount to a coherent policy. *some* things should be illegal. *some* people should be locked up. however, moralising doesn't actually stop what's happening in the "real world" every day.

there's so many double standards - city establishmenst putting round memo's to staff: "please note, it is not acceptable to use cocaine at your desk" but then talk about crack and people will tell you that it turns law abiding citizens into armed robbers within 5 minutes.

the fact is that millions of people use controlled drugs recreationally. you can agree with it or disagree with it but i don't see how you're going to change it. it's trying to sort out the "problem users", whether their drug of choice is alcohol or heroin or anything else, that is the challenge.

sorry for going off on one again...

and btw - on a more serious note, why are the smilies not in colour anymore, except one?

farmer1

Haven't really read much of this thread yet but isn't the main problem people getting on to the drug to begin with.

Personnally I say to hell with the people which are on it. shouldn't have been so weak minded to use it. How about the government doing something for the honest man, who pays his taxes and tries to be a law abiding citizen.

jason4656

can some clever intelligent intelectual person here tell me the difference between alcohol and heroin? apart from the obvious like you dont inject alcohol, and the legality issues, whats the difference??

......

exactly so i guess all people who drink are scum too? and they should be shot? along with all off licenses and pub landlords? talk about not having a clue...

ProperCharlie

there is a difference between heroin and alcohol: a few hundred thousand people a year die from alcohol related illness, the figure for heroin doesn't reach 3 figures.

i'm not saying i'd want to shoot up instead of having a pint at the local, but it does show how much we accpet some things, as we aren't constantly told that they are evil, whereas other stuff gets the old "kneee jerk" reaction.

jason4656

thanks for that, perhaps some people will look at the reality of the situation now. not just come out with senseless comments about all heroin addicts are scum and so on

Leslie

The legalisation of Class A drugs would immediately encourage more young people to use them since they will use it as an excuse that it is not a stupid situation to get yourself into. There should be a concentrated education programme to ensure that people know the sort of problems for later life that they would be storing up for themselves.

There is no way that it can be said that drug taking, especially class A drugs, will do you no harm. Nor that it is a required way of life.

Les

V45DSM

I often have a wee nip before I go to bed - I can drink every day for a few weeks and then not bother for a month. Could I be as flippant on smack? Can I catch aids from someones pint glass? If I leave a discarded beer can laying about will some child endanger themselves by playing with it? Am I going to make a mess of my arms with shot glasses? No. And before you say ‘but if it was legalised blah blah’ blah - don't, because people are lazy ******* they would still share and carelessly discard needles. Just because we've got a nation of alcohol ****-ups doesn't mean we should add a bunch of smack heads to them.

If it were ever legalised the Government would slap so much tax on it the black marketers wouldn't even notice a dip in trade. If anything they would probably see an upturn as all the new legal junkies’ sourced cheaper gear.

Scientists have developed a fungus that attacks opium poppies - but they can't release it – why the **** not? No Poppies, no heroin, no reason to legalise it. Get it ******* released!

Diesel

Err, poppy fungus jobbie would lead to no morphine either to help those with a terminal illness (AFAIK!).

The rest of the above points relate to keeping the fabulously effective status quo (which I can hardly agree with of course!). D

V45DSM

[QUOTE=Diesel]Err, poppy fungus jobbie would lead to no morphine either to help those with a terminal illness (AFAIK!).

There are plenty of synthetic drugs available.

Here's the story, its 6 years old now!:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/121735.stm

Diesel

Err, well, umm, what about rememberance Sunday then!!!!