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
In a way, what you say is true, but you are discounting treatment options. Legalised heroin would go hand in hand with treatment I would think. It would probably work better than prescribing methadone.
Tell me ww, what is your solution? Its patently obvious that the current approach isn't working.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that thanks. A lot of agencies now use the bio-psycho-social model because the medical model is too simplistic as it ignores psychological and social factors.
Fair enough. I still find them a bit dubious. I would have thought the biggest drug found in people in custody was alcohol. On Friday and Saturdays night's the cells are filled with pissheads. I suspect alcohol wasn't tested for though.
I don't see you're point here are you suggesting we leave the drug trade in the hands of criminals and terrorists? What other lucrative trades? There is no other trade more lucrative than drugs.
Legalisation would mean that we'd take these potentially dangerous dangerous drugs out of the hands of these career criminals you speak of. This in turn wpould mean that the user would have to come into contact with these people.
It also worries me that you don't have a very good grasp of 'Dealers'. There are many sorts of people who deal but the majority that the end users deal with are ordinary people like us. They have full time jobs and just deal a few bars or pills here and there to suppliment their income. These are not evil people.
Drugs are both cheaper and easier to get hold of than alcohol. You can only bury alcohol certain places at times of the day, and you have to be over 18 to buy it. Because drugs arn't regulated like alcohol you can buy them any time, any where, by anybody.
They shouldn't, I wouldn't agree with a ban on any drugs because it doesn't work. Heroin and coke are already in society and they're not going to leave anytime soon - if you want the problems they cause sorted out you can't have the government pushing these drug underground, they need to be regulated properly.
WhoWhere, do you think we've got a problem with drugs in society at the moment? Do you agree that the law as it satnds now, doesnt work? You've disagreed with all our suggestions so what would you do?
WW's police aproach seems to be one of fearing the top criminals and terrorists loosing there most lucrative earner and moving onto something else ...what is this magical something else that would make billions and billions of punds a year illegaly?
if those against legalisation re- read through this whole thread they would realize they have offered nothing but leave it as it is. they bemoan the fact that guns and vioelnce, death disease and near anachary have broken out across the land and things are getting worse year on year ...but, lets leave it as it is ...lets leave it alone ...till it destroys our lives. very strange.
so ...80 % of arrested felons test positive for cannabis which means ...that 80% of criminals like to have a smoke ...it does not mean that 80% of smokers are criminals.
the above is an extract from an interview with a scientist regarding the dangers of nano technology ....whats does this have to do with this thread?
read the last sentence!
When I'm talking abut drug abuse I'm not talking about social drugs, things like pills or cannabis, which although they do have some lasting effects aren't as dangerous and nowhere near as addictive as some other drugs, namely heroin and coke.
I point out these 2 prices you quoted above, the price for one gram. How many grams will a real addict get through in a day? How many grams will an addict get through in a week? It all adds up, and as I said elsewhere addicts spend approx £300-£500 a week supporting an addiction. In real terms, all that actually is, is maybe 10 grams. A lot more expensive than alcohol, wouldn't you say?
Mr Roll and others. There are many other crimes the big time dealers can get involved in, or already are in. I can guarantee if we legalised heroin a dealer would think it would be a good idea to import it illegally and sell it for half the price, maintaing his foothold in the market.
They may actively engage in more intense smuggling operations, credit card fraud, insurance fraud. The types of crime that whilst relatively low key at the moment are still costing the country millions in lost revenues each year. Imagine a small time dealer getting a foot in the door of credit card frauds. It wouldn't just cost the country, it would cost individuals as well.
A personal solution, I believe that's what you want from me? I believe operating a one strike and you're out system would be most beneficial. Increase the scope of detox schemes, offering good quality drugs for free, but only for administration by a doctor or nurse on controlled premises (hospitals or open jails). Once the course is finished help in finding employment, probably menial work, but work is work at the end of the day. Possibly offering subsidised education of a vocational nature would be a good idea as well.
But, and there is a but.....if at any time they go back on the drugs after the course is finished they are punished. Not with prison, but with controlled community work, or something similar.
As some sort of incentive (as if the promise of finding work or a second chance at education isn't enough) at no point will the addict be given a criminal record UNLESS they commit a crime to fund the habit, or if they do something daft like murdering someone.
Some people might complain that why should the criminal addicts be helped, but this system will be open and available to everybody who requires it.
At the same time, dealers of ANY sort who are found to be coercing people into taking drugs again will be punished to the full extent of the law. Any property they own, any money they have will be seized by the police and used to pay for the detox programmes. The dealers won't need it because they won't be coming out of prison. Ever.
Anybody found selling Heroin, Cocaine, or any other highly addictive drug will as above be dealt with severely, with courts having to impose a MINIMUM sentence of ten years.
Cannabis will be made available from pharmacies only, for consumption on private property only, based on the fact that smoking tobacco is banned from most public areas anyway. It'll be available from pharmacies because from there it will be easier to control and monitor an individual's use. If at any time somebody is found to sell it on after purchase (don't know why because they'd lose money) they will likewise be punished.
The sale of "social" drugs will be licensed and made available from licensed premises, again for use in the home or on private property.
Anybody found to be under the influence of drugs whilst in a posistion of responsibility will be punished severely, this includes alcohol.
shipping heroin in would not be anything like profitable enough any longer. i don't think you realize how big these operations are simply because there uis such vast ammounts of cash to be made ...it would no longer be viable any longer other than your odd tourist smuggler.
getting tough with dealers sounds good but ...they tried doing that in south america ...what happened? cartels were formed and armed themselves to the teeth. anyone facing ten years because you just found their stash would be far more likely to shoot you.
the level of violence would rocket.
why are you so content to leave the villains in charge of this trade?
I wouldn't say an about face. I'd say meeting you halfway would be a better way of putting it, don't you? If it's kept off the streets, then I don't care what happens, except with Heroin and the like.
As for getting tough with the dealers, I'm not content with leaving them in charge. And I have no intention of finding someone's stash, leave that to the armed police. I don't see we'd see anything like what has happened in places like Colombia, for one reason. The UK is far smaller than South America, where would the dealers hide in order to mount raids on us? The Cotswolds? The South Americans are losing because the drugs trade there is on a much larger scale. For one thing they create the stuff, so those drug lords again have more to lose than the dealers at this end. For another point I believe our armed forces and police are a lot more competent than the Colombians.
Getting there, whowhere, getting there. But still somewhat naive and misunderstanding of people, the reasons why people take drugs and how people become clean. Maybe its your age, or your experience of life, but people and situations are not as simple as you seem to think they are.
He has said get them courses, give them detox what more can he suggest ? Id presume in detox they have counsellors so its them who do the solving of why they use drugs etc.
I like it. The only thing that worries me is the one stricke and you're out system. Rather than a course, I think we should give the addicts what they need until they make the decision to stop themselves. You can't make them stop and refuse them drugs anymore because they'll go elsewhere on the street to get it, which sort of defies the whole point.
...but yes come down hard on drug crime but not on drugs.
I like that too.
If you legalise all drugs there will be no excuse for dealers and therefore the law should come down hard on them.
O.K but the law must alllow for users to 'grow your own' - provided they don't sell it on.
....and again I have no problem with that except you'll have to let people do drugs in 'social drugs' in licensed bars and clubs.
The whole point is you make it simple. You pose a simple solution to a complex problem.
Why does it matter if they don't want to come off heroin? It doesn't matter why they got into it in the first place.
Explain to me why, when the state would be perfectly prepared to spend as much time and money as necessary to get someone off drugs they would still need to consider their options as it were?
Not from an argumentative point, but just from a curious one.
Rolly, i know that rich people take heroin and it doesn't affect them in the same way. But what sort of message does it give out to children and other young people when it turns out their idol has been happily snorting coke for years?
The whole point of my idea is that it would give a helping hand to people, yet at the same time deter people from taking it up afresh.
I agree that it would be complex to legalise drugs, there would have to be safeguards in place etc. But my opinion still stands that most of the harm caused by drugs is caused by their blackmarket status. I'm not the only person to think this, top police officers, MP's and health professionals do too.
Because they won't come off and stay off if they don't want to, thats why.
Yes it does. Addiction and dependency are complex problems often a with deep seated psychological basis. Most (not all, mind) people with severe chaotic drug problems are using drugs to escape emotional and psychological distress. If you don't address these underlying problems, repair people's self esteem and get people to stand on their own two feet without these dependencies then they're gonna relapse.
Because the state has a responsibilty towards society. And because it would be cheaper for everyone in the long run. Thats why.
I meant, why when the state is giving the treatment away free would an addict choose not to take the hand up?
Sorry if you misunderstood.
Again from a curious point of view. I know personally speaking if I were in any sort of rut I'd grab any help I could get.
Why is that something ot be attacked for?
Ok, then. The State takes over supply of all drugs, the villains are gone.
Question One: who pays for these drugs? Drugs, as always, are only ever a problem if you cannot afford them, and some people will be unable to afford them at any price. So for these people, does the state subsidise the cost of the drugs, i.e. will taxpayers pay for someone else's jollies? Or does the State turn away those who cannot pay for the drugs- meaning they still have to turn to crime to get their hit anyway?
Question Two: who does the State give the drugs to? Does the State impose an age limit, and if so, what age limit? What do the people who are too young do? If doctors prescribe the drugs, who do they prescribe them to- anyone who asks, or only those who have a medical need? If only those with a medical need, that asks a further question: where do those who have the desire but not the need go?
The black market can be tamed, but it cannot be obliterated, even with the legal sale of drugs. ANY restriction will create a black market for those exempted from the legal market, so arguments against a black market become largely invalid.
Reasons why I'm wrong, anyone, please?
the MASSIVE ...amounts of money won't be there though ...so the violence and the attraction to easy money goes down in a huge way ...making the illegals almost negligable.
yes the state pay ...why not? the whole of society are paying a fucking price that cannot be sustained any longer.
Why should the state pay for someone else to snort a line of coke or six on a Saturday night?
Why should the state pay for someone to stay on brown, without making ANY EFFORT to come off it?
I'd say it would put them off drugs, they would probably realise why their pop idol talks so much bollocks during interviews and what made them decide to record that 'concept' album with the 30 minute songs.
Because people are complex and can't always see whats best.
Why should the state pay for you to have a few pints of lager on a Saturday night? Does it? Or do we pay the state through taxes?
The state won't be for much longer, at least not in the middle. The police have told the nightclub owners if they want to keep thier licences they will have to pay for the police.
If they dont pay for the police they will be shut down.
I don't drink lager, but if I did I pay the state for the privilege of doing so.
Prescribing drugs could not work like that. If drugs cost more than £6.30 to manufacture and distribute, then the state would be subsidising the cost, and if it charged cost then there are those who would not be able to afford it. Leading, once more, to the crime.
Unless the state pays for the drugs for the addicts who cannot pay for it themselves, the arguments about crime become nullified. Not all druggies become thieves- it's only those who cannot afford the drugs. And that rpoblem would remain regardless of supplier.
The bottom line is that the cost to society of drugs being illegal is far more than it would be if they were legalised. The state (and ultimately, us) already pays for illegal drug use. Our taxes go towards arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning people for possession, for dealing, for comitting crime to fund habits. We pay for detox units, medical and therapeutic interventions, residential rehabs etc. We pay increased insurance premiums due to crime etc etc.
And?
It's normally the punters who create the problems. Once they start behaving themselves the police presence will no longer be required and prices will go down.