If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Obviously not. But it would send under-16s the message that having sex at that age is a-okay - you'd be stupid to deny that - which would likely lead to more of them doing so and the effects I pointed out. It would make a mockery of the age of consent.
It sends the message that teenage pregnancy is worse than teenage sex.
Well yes, actually. I don't think you're helping heroin addicts by giving them clean needles, patting them on the head, and saying 'run along now'. You honestly can't see that that does more harm than good?
Do you think the lack of clean needles is going to stop them?
Or do you think by giving them access to clean needles they're going to shoot up more?
It could happen to anyone I guess. One day you're a law abiding citizen in full employment who's never done drugs, the next you walk past a clinic where they're giving away free syringes and needles and think 'hey, I guess I might as well take advantage of this and shoot up'.
So let's let them all catch up Hep C and HIV- obviously they deserve it for being addicted to drugs.
Christ... :rolleyes:
But come on, explain The Netherlands to us all. Because everything you seem to oppose seems to have been implimented in Holland, and yet they have some of the lowest rates of these social problems. Whereas everywhere that's following the policies that you seem to support have the highest rates of all of these social problems. Where is the explosion of drug use and child sex that you promised us?
I don't have evidence to support the posts I made. To be honest I would have thought common sense tells anyone with a brain that you are not helping drug addicts quit their addiction by giving them clean needles; that that does more harm than good. Just as making the pill available to under-16s will do more harm than good becaue it sends mixed messages. I have to admit, I didn't think I would need to back it up with scientific evidence and you're right, I have none.
As far as the Netherlands go, as well as having the sexual education and freely available contraception that you applaud, they also have a strong moral component to sex-ed in their schools, especially their Calvinist schools, and they don't, as a society, laud unmarried motherhood either. You look at the one-side of their policy (the side our government embraces) and ignore the other. Their approach is more holistic, we have a damage limitation approach, trying to deal just with the consequences while remaining wilfully blind to the fact that in doing so we increase those consequences. This Labour government loves what it thinks is responsible for the successes in the Netherlands just like you do. Which is why they have made contraceptives more freely avaiable. Teens here have been taught, and know, all about contraceptives yet our teen pregnancy numbers are still higher than other European countries and some STD cases are on the rise. Since Labour is implementing it, where are the results your libertine policy promises us?
If you really think giving them needles has any effect whatsoever on prolonging their addition I fear you don't comprehend the issue of drug addiction very well. They're going to shoot up regardless of what the law says and whether they have clean needles at hand. That's the long and short of it.
I've never argued for anything other than a complete replication of the system in Holland. And at no point does this ever include restricting access of contraception to teenagers, which you propose. You're the only one here wanting to take half of the Dutch system, and dismiss the bits that you clearly morally disagree with, rather than disagree with on any question of their effectiveness (as you've already demonstrated in the previous quote by coming to your conclusions without viewing any of the evidence).
You do know how many addicts contract diseases through sharing/using dirty needles don't you?
As for encouraging single parenthood... before any of you come out with charges that I'm "demonising" single parents, or "singing from the Daily Mail's hymn-sheet" or other such moronic allegations, let me remind the board - I used to go out with a single mother, so I have some idea of what life is like for them. 'Horrendously difficult' would be my conclusion, and I was just the boyfriend! I lost count of the number of times she said to me "two parents are better than one". And it's true. This Government has got rid of incentives to get married. We could see this agenda from day one in abolishing the Married Couples Allowance. Heck, even the word 'marriage' itself has been purged from the tax system. (under the laughable pretence that people's use of language changes!) New Labour believes ultimately in state control - marriage and strong families are the two best things to protect against that. Hence why New Labour, filled by holy-than-thou control freaks, is attempting to destroy the two institutions. This is another part of that strategy, and it must be stopped.
Yes, its obviously better than under 16's don't have sex and that we have a moral climate which persuades young people to wait until they're old enough and in a committed relationship before they have sex.
Unfortunately reality intrudes. No matter what the moral climate there's always going to be people who have sex and they need to be protected, unless you want to go back to the days when unmarried Mums were dropped in convents and their kids shipped to Australia to start new lives...
On a more contentious note, I think parents should have an option available to take their kids out of sex education if they would prefer to do it by themselves. There are people who think this shouldn't be available - why? Don't you trust parents to know what's best for their kids?
I certainly don't trust all parents, which is why we have compulsory education, social services etc.
The parents may have plenty of rights, but no they shouldn't have absolute rights...
You can choose how kids get their education, so why can't parents choose how they get their sex education? Kids do need sex education, no two ways about it, but why does everyone have to get it in the same way?
no, but if you're taken out of state education you need to show that you are educating your kids. So, if you decide to diy sex education I can't see why you needn't have to do the same thing and that you have to show your sex education is more than 'you'll burn in hell if you have sex before marriage'
Bloody hell. Just how many of the opinions in all the posts in all the threads in this debate forum are backed up by scientific studies? How many of your posts have you backed up with research evidence? Posts here would be pretty sparse if everyone had to cement every opinion, in every post, with research evidence. Unless you're a hypocrite you will show me the research evidence which shows that giving clean needles to heroin addicts reduces heroin addiction. You'll show me the research evidence that shows that making the pill available to under-16s won't lead to an increase in the number of under-16s having sex, that it won't lead to an increase in the levels of STDs in that age group, and that it will actually reduce the level of pregnancy/abortion in that age group. When you do so, I will gladly admit that my opinion, based on common-sense, is wrong.
If you are for a complete replication of the system in Holland, then how come I only ever read you advocating the failed 'let's throw contraceptives at kids' part of it? If you don't dismiss the other parts of the Dutch policy, then why aren't you criticising the government for foreshortening the Dutch policy yet again?
I think it will do more harm than good to make the pill available to under-16s. I am not opposed to contraception as a whole. Is the pill freely available to girls under-16 in Holland? Have studies been done which disprove the assertions I made about the effects this will have? If so, then by all means post them! Like I said, show me research evidence disproving my assertions and I will happily stand corrected.
No, but the way you've highlighted the word 'do' suggests that it's an awful lot. Tell me this though, how exactly does giving heroin addicts clean needles reduce the number of addicts?
I've never said that you have to back up everything you say with a scientific study, or report, or set of statistics. I was just saying that it's ridiculous to, like you have, come to a conclusion without doing the slightest bit of research into the issue. Your attitude of "I'm going to believe this, without evidence, until you prove me wrong" just proves that you're not at all open minded about the issue. It's not my job to educate you. Do a bit of research. Do a few searches on Google if you're genuinely interested. But I'm not going to debate someone who's arguing strongly on a subject the admit to knowing nothing about, and then think that it's my responsibility to prove them wrong.
Not all parents know what's best for the kids. That much should be obvious after looking at news of what a few parents do to/teach their kids.
Come off it, I' am perfectly open-minded. You claimed that my assertions were wrong and in the spirit of open-mindedness I asked you to point me towards the research evidence on which your claim was based. You can't do that because you have none - probably because none has been done into this. In the absence of research evidence, anyone with common sense, and a brain, can make an intelligent guess as to the effect this will have. Your reply just proves that you are reasoning without research evidence, and what makes it worse is that you are doing so without a trace of common sense either.
Right, and with all your moral superiority it never once occurred to you that getting heroin addicts off heroin, completely, just might be even more beneficial to their health? To the well-being of the friends and family who love them, and to the communities they and their dealers operate in?
Because if you want to stop somebody farting profusely, you don't keep feeding them beans.
You might as well ask how taking holidays in France helps to reduce the number of addicts.
Point is that it isn't done for that reason. People will inject, we cannot stop that, but we can reduce the risks to them if they do.
Just as teenagers will have sex, they always have. So, if we cannot stop it then surely reducing risks is the next best option.
But they aren't being "fed beans" are they? No one is forcing kids to have sex or addicts to inject. However there is acceptace that some will continue to "eat beans" so why not provide air freshener?
Whether to give heroin addicts needles or not is going to have no effect in their drug taking WHATSOEVER..
None what-so-e-ever.
So bearing that in mind, do you let hundreds if not thousands of addicts catch HIV and Hep C? Or do you do, as well as providing whichever support possible to help them quit their addiction, provide them with clean needles so at least their chances of catching those diseases is reduced?
Jesus fucking Christ... :rolleyes:
As for the drugs debate that seems to be going on alongside this, for some bizarre reason... there's no doubt that the law as it stands is failing. But I'm not very easy with this idea of supplying those who want to shoot up with needles. Why encourage something that's currently illegal? Don't get me wrong - I don't particularly agree with the law as it stands, but I've yet to be convinced that total legalisation is the solution.
Because one isn't dealing with the cause of the problem if you take that approach. And in trying to deal with the consequences alone, you end up increasing those consequences and creating new problems at the same time. It's not pragmatism, it's pessimism and short-sightedness.
I feel the same way about you each time I read one of your posts, but I persevere regardless in the vain hope that some of what I say will get through to you.
You are being incoherent just like the government and that's the problem. 'providing whichever support possible' and giving out clean needles for them to shoot up with at the same time is foolish. It sends out a contradictory message while giving the impression that shooting up is okay as long as you do it 'safely'. Similarly placing the age of consent at 16 and then making contraceptives available to under-16s sends an incoherent message.
The Swedes have less drug abuse than we do. Their government sends out a coherent message that drugs are unacceptable. And parts of society from the top right down to teachers and social workers sing the same tune. They rightly believe that the damage limitation policy you support does more harm than good. As such they give addicts treatment, which doesn't include giving them clean needles to carry on with their addiction: it takes the drug itself out of the equation because the drug itself is the problem.
Here are the minutes of Select Committee meeting on the Swedish policy:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/2031902.htm
It's just a shame that our government didn't take his advice.