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
I totally agree with you, drugs is just a trade like any other, the difference to many being it is illegal, but like many trades legal and illegal, there is a lot of nastiness involved.
And they are businessmen without the regulations they should have, i mean if you are fucked over by a drug dealer who are you going to go to, the police?
That's the irony, isn't it?
That won't make a jot of difference y'know.
Even if drugs were legalised, do you think they'd hand over control that easy?
They'll do something else.
This will have been said before probably, but can't you understand the "guys at the top" have come about because of prohibition
Prohibition = organised crime.
Get rid of prohibition and the problem is sorted, it's not difficult.
What I'm saying is that a lot of these people have blood on their hands, which they should pay for.
No doubt. On the topic of legalisation, though, that's not relevent.
I totally agree with you on that point.
That is also why i'm for decriminalisation of most drugs, so the power these people wield via drugs can be taken away from them, they may not all be caught, but at least they may pay by the drying up of their funds.
You remove the crime, for sure (by definition), but you certainly don't remove the social problems. Just look at alcohol.
Agreed.
Fine, but they take them because it feels good and hence they can cope with their "uncomfortable feelings and memories". It certainly won't happen if governments aren't serious about it. But lobbying against anti-drug trafficking legilsation isn't helpful to either side. If you are to legalise drugs, supply would still need to be controlled if you are suggesting taxing sales.
you do remove almost all the social problems.
there are millions of people who find life impossible/unbearable without a little chemical help from the doctor.
when you say, 'would still need to be controlled' ...the idea of legalising them is to regain control of something that is totaly out of control with the current laws.
no one wants drugs legalised in such a way that any tom dick and harry can sell them ...thats what we have now.
Define harmless. An addictive drug can never be "harmless".
Call it insider knowledge
I don't recall ever attempting to quantify the problem, and I don't see how it affects my argument.
£80? Six quid on the Hardwick.
I don't follow the logic
Remind me
Explain
What's your point?
Just a clarification after morrocon roll suggested that addiction was an illness that needed treating. You're seriously suggesting that drug users who commit crimes should be set free because they use drugs?
But how? You'd still have addicts desperate for the next fix. You'd still have crimes being committed to feed habits.
Doctors should only prescribe therapeutic treatments, not recreational drugs. You cannot possibly be comparing drugs like anti-depressants with heroin?
Regain?
If you are proposing taxing drug sales then the government would need to have control over supply. So what do you propose?
no one has suggested that any criminals should geyt off with anything.
anyone who commits a crime is dealt with in the usual manner ...
Reasonable point. But we don't treat alcoholics by providing booze on demand, or gamblers by giving them a good tip on the 3.20 at Aintree. That's exactly what Blagtsa suggested:
Think about how much worse the social problems would be if alcohol was illegal. Prohibition in America?
And heroin use doesn't cause the same level of violence. You ever seen someone start a fight when gouched out?
Not really how it works.
Yes.
as an addict you can function perfectly normaly ...thousands of doctors engineers mechanics etc do so every day ...the trouble with it being illegal is you don't know for sure where your next dose is coming from.
it is a constant worry. a worry that takes over your every waking moment.
imagine a diabetic being in the same situation ...they would have their insulin and then start worrying and planning where and how the next dose is coming from.
in the sixties people used to get a pad of prescriptions ...seven day pad with am and pm scripts. america and europe had a growing heroin problem and the uk didn't.
after much research ...i think it was the wooton comitee ...advised the government to keep it this way because stopping it would lead to an explosion in heroin use.
the government ignored the comitee and criminalized it to bring us inline with america ...as they say ...the rest is history.
the government having control of the supply is what we want. along with the pharmacuticals industry ...how it used to be ...then there would indeed be control.
kent ...we can't go on like we have for the last forty years can we?
I'm not suggesting prohibiting alcohol.
Heroin may not cause violence. The pursuit of heroin most certainly does.
I don't know what "gouched out" means.
Enlighten me. Yes what?
Physically harmless.
You don't know then.
Quite a lot actually. You said "vast majority". I'm saying that can be disputed.
Not for a gramme.
Obviously not. :rolleyes:
Street heroin is often only 20% pure. Pharm grade is near enough 100%. Clear now?
Legalised heroin would be of a known purity (thus reducing accidental OD), wouldn't be cut with shit (thus reducing abscesses etc), use would not be stigmatised (thus reducing social exclusion), it would be cheaper and legally available (thus reducing crime) etc etc
A plant cannot be licensed.
That the medical model is not very useful on its own.
Still doesn't make sense.
No, but that's not what you said originally, is it?
Exactly my point. Pursuit of prohibited black market heroin and protection of turf causes violence (although most heroin addicts fund through shoplifting or kiting, not through violent crime).
If you had "insider knowledge", you'd know what this means. It means smacked out, on the nod, high on heroin.
Heroin is a painkiller. It numbs emotion and psychic pain.
Yes I agree that the supply side would have to be brought into line.
But we give alcoholics benzo's which have much the same effect as a methadone or heroin reduction programme.
And gambling is not a physical addiction. However most addictive behaviour has similar pyschological and emotional roots
No it wasn't.
Please try and read the thread. :rolleyes:
You're still not being clear. Do you mean that because the near enough 100% pure is available, the street price will have to come down, or that because the drug is 100% pure it will be cheeper, because either way you weren't being clear what you meant, and for the latter the logic is beyond me.
Pharm grade heroin is about £40/gram for an injectable amp, but this is pretty much 100%. Therefore it is actually cheaper than half the price as you get 100% in a gram rather than 20%. More for your money in otherwords.
Clear now?
Different inside, obviously.
And I have seen wannabe-"gouched out" addicts being violent.
What is psychic pain?
Thanks, I know what heroin is
My misunderstanding it seems. So drug users should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us?
I do, have no fear. Just reading your posts doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with them
But let's not get sidetracked with hypothetical economics. :cool:
if not ...what would you propose?
I am too worried about the consequences of legalisation to support that idea. Decriminalisation wouldn't solve any of the associated problems. So I guess that leaves the status quo. I would prefer more money to be invested in examining the root causes of drug use. The sociology of drug use suggests to me that simply wanting to expand the mind or express oneself is not the reason for most hard drug use.