• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica

glasgowspur said:
Wow that must be one of the most amazing things I've ever read.
Sell one of the most addictive substances known to man, then when do become addicted give it to you for free!
Wtf
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's no kind of business plan.

Give it away, get them hooked and then ramp up the price!
 
glasgowspur said:
As last resort with small group, even that seems crazy.
But the suggestion above is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Click to expand...

DZA was talking about addicts, and admitted as much as not having thought out all the details.

Methadone treatment for heroin addicts is becoming quite commonplace. This is one step further, but the reactions from those with a more conservative view of drug policies is very similar.

This is a (somewhat) new direction in drug treatment. Early results are looking promising and from a socioeconomic point of view it seems to make a lot of sense so far at least. Your reaction is fairly common, but imo unfortunate. That kind of negative gut reaction leads to a lot of inertia in a system that desperately needs massive change.

At least in Norway a lot of drug addicts get treated a lot by the health care system. And they often get a lot of pharmaceuticals already that will have similar effects to drugs being sold on the street. Actually a lot of those drugs will be sold at a huge markup on the streets.
 
glasgowspur said:
Wow that must be one of the most amazing things I've ever read.
Sell one of the most addictive substances known to man, then when do become addicted give it to you for free!
Wtf
Click to expand...

I saw a drug expert on Bill Maher (American TV show), I can't remember the guys name. But he was saying that people don't just take Heroin and boom, Heroin addict is created. He was arguing that there are thousands of people all over the world involved in very bad accidents, and they are given high grade morphine in hospitals, basically the same drug. But they don't become drug addicts afterwards. He said that it is environment that tends to lead to addiction, which is why most drug addicts are from poor neighbourhoods.

Anybody who really wants to try heroin can buy it, so I don't see a problem with making it available legitimately -- better to buy it legally with a product that meets a certain standard than from criminals who could make it more dangerous.

If Heroin was legal, I wouldn't buy it -- the same as I don't smoke or drink. We don't legislate alcohol from the starting point of the people in shop doorways drinking meths. We sell alcohol, even though it destroys some people. Prohibition of alcohol has been tried and it failed massively in places where people wanted to get drunk. It made criminals very rich (Al Capone for example) and people would kill each other over selling whiskey. It seems like madness now that it was ever illegal to buy alcohol.
 
the dza said:
I saw a drug expert on Bill Maher (American TV show), I can't remember the guys name. But he was saying that people don't just take Heroin and boom, Heroin addict is created. He was arguing that there are thousands of people all over the world involved in very bad accidents, and they are given high grade morphine in hospitals, basically the same drug. But they don't become drug addicts afterwards. He said that it is environment that tends to lead to addiction, which is why most drug addicts are from poor neighbourhoods.

Anybody who really wants to try heroin can buy it, so I don't see a problem with making it available legitimately -- better to buy it legally with a product that meets a certain standard than from criminals who could make it more dangerous.

If Heroin was legal, I wouldn't buy it -- the same as I don't smoke or drink. We don't legislate alcohol from the starting point of the people in shop doorways drinking meths. We sell alcohol, even though it destroys some people. Prohibition of alcohol has been tried and it failed massively in places where people wanted to get drunk. It made criminals very rich (Al Capone for example) and people would kill each other over selling whiskey. It seems like madness now that it was ever illegal to buy alcohol.
Click to expand...
There was a time when professionals took heroine the way many would now smoke weed. They have perfectly normal, productive lives without addiction or any of the associated crime.
 
scaramanga said:
There was a time when professionals took heroine the way many would now smoke weed. They have perfectly normal, productive lives without addiction or any of the associated crime.
Click to expand...

So, I have my tin-foil hat ready...why do we all think drugs are illegal? Because there is no way politicians don't know that the currents laws are a nonsense.
 
the dza said:
So, I have my tin-foil hat ready...why do we all think drugs are illegal? Because there is no way politicians don't know that the currents laws are a nonsense.
Click to expand...
For the same reason abortions are illegal in Ireland and a talking point in the US, I suspect. Because large chunks of the electorate are socially conservative and not willing to listen to evidence or reason.

I also think there's a bit of a conservatism ratchet like there is with socialism. A brief trend can quickly create the conditions for the creation of a conservative law, it then becomes very difficult to repeal that law.
 
the dza said:
I saw a drug expert on Bill Maher (American TV show), I can't remember the guys name. But he was saying that people don't just take Heroin and boom, Heroin addict is created. He was arguing that there are thousands of people all over the world involved in very bad accidents, and they are given high grade morphine in hospitals, basically the same drug. But they don't become drug addicts afterwards. He said that it is environment that tends to lead to addiction, which is why most drug addicts are from poor neighbourhoods.

Anybody who really wants to try heroin can buy it, so I don't see a problem with making it available legitimately -- better to buy it legally with a product that meets a certain standard than from criminals who could make it more dangerous.

If Heroin was legal, I wouldn't buy it -- the same as I don't smoke or drink. We don't legislate alcohol from the starting point of the people in shop doorways drinking meths. We sell alcohol, even though it destroys some people. Prohibition of alcohol has been tried and it failed massively in places where people wanted to get drunk. It made criminals very rich (Al Capone for example) and people would kill each other over selling whiskey. It seems like madness now that it was ever illegal to buy alcohol.
Click to expand...

You didn't say heroin, you said all drugs.

I've known and lived beside heroin addicts and trust me whatever they were before becoming an addict they are not reasonable right thinking people once they do become addicted.
There can be no way that a program like this can be administered that would make the obtaining of their fix at a time suitable for them without great expense. If an addict needs a fix at 2 o'clock in the morning they aren't going to wait until opening times to get it like a good citizen, they will do whatever they need to do to get it.
 
braineclipse said:
DZA was talking about addicts, and admitted as much as not having thought out all the details.

Methadone treatment for heroin addicts is becoming quite commonplace. This is one step further, but the reactions from those with a more conservative view of drug policies is very similar.

This is a (somewhat) new direction in drug treatment. Early results are looking promising and from a socioeconomic point of view it seems to make a lot of sense so far at least. Your reaction is fairly common, but imo unfortunate. That kind of negative gut reaction leads to a lot of inertia in a system that desperately needs massive change.

At least in Norway a lot of drug addicts get treated a lot by the health care system. And they often get a lot of pharmaceuticals already that will have similar effects to drugs being sold on the street. Actually a lot of those drugs will be sold at a huge markup on the streets.
Click to expand...

It is not a gut reaction, I've known drug addicts, drug dealers and even a fairly high level and now convicted drug smuggler.
I know them on a everyday level including having them my house.
Some of them, much scaramanga alludes to were respectable members of the community in positions of responsibility. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean someone isn't an addict. They become adept at hiding the addiction.
 
glasgowspur said:
You didn't say heroin, you said all drugs.

I've known and lived beside heroin addicts and trust me whatever they were before becoming an addict they are not reasonable right thinking people once they do become addicted.
There can be no way that a program like this can be administered that would make the obtaining of their fix at a time suitable for them without great expense. If an addict needs a fix at 2 o'clock in the morning they aren't going to wait until opening times to get it like a good citizen, they will do whatever they need to do to get it.
Click to expand...

Compared to the expense of them getting their drug money through crime?

Just a quick google and I'm by no means a financial expert, but a scientific paper trying to calculate the cost of some crimes to society:

Results in a table: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/table/T3/
Full article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/

2008 and dollars, and surely there are flaws to their estimates. But still. A $6000 per-offence cost to a household burglary, or $8000 for a stolen property. That's tangible costs by the way.

No source for this, but heard from a very solid source that after a reasonable sized Norwegian city started methadone treatment household burglaries in high risk areas of the city dropped by 80%.

This kind of thing being (short-mid term) financially a good idea seems overwhelmingly likely. There might be long term effects that aren't as well understood. But "great expense" is what should be used to describe the current approach. Because you're right about the addict needing a fix at 2 in the morning he's going to do whatever he needs to get it. And "whatever" is likely going to be very costly to society.
 
glasgowspur said:
It is not a gut reaction, I've known drug addicts, drug dealers and even a fairly high level and now convicted drug smuggler.
I know them on a everyday level including having them my house.
Some of them, much scaramanga alludes to were respectable members of the community in positions of responsibility. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean someone isn't an addict. They become adept at hiding the addiction.
Click to expand...

Ok then, not a gut reaction. Tell me what you know about the current trials being done on this. Or your knowledge on the treatment of drug addiction. I assume if your reaction isn't a gut reaction you have some solid knowledge in this particular area.

For me at least knowing drug users, addicts, dealers or smugglers doesn't make you knowledgeable on drug treatment or the socioeconomic impact of various solutions.
 
braineclipse said:
Ok then, not a gut reaction. Tell me what you know about the current trials being done on this. Or your knowledge on the treatment of drug addiction. I assume if your reaction isn't a gut reaction you have some solid knowledge in this particular area.

For me at least knowing drug users, addicts, dealers or smugglers doesn't make you knowledgeable on drug treatment or the socioeconomic impact of various solutions.
Click to expand...

But you are quoting figures and reports on conditions as they are, not on a scale likely to be caused by the legal availability of all drugs which is what dza is advocating.

It's my honest opinion based on my experience. I haven't tried to pass it off as anything and I'm certainly not trying to troll or start a long acrimonious debate like the vaccination damage one is.
You dismissed my comments with as a gut reaction, I've responded with my reasons as to why it's not a gut reaction.
Take it or leave it.
 
glasgowspur said:
You didn't say heroin, you said all drugs.

I've known and lived beside heroin addicts and trust me whatever they were before becoming an addict they are not reasonable right thinking people once they do become addicted.
There can be no way that a program like this can be administered that would make the obtaining of their fix at a time suitable for them without great expense. If an addict needs a fix at 2 o'clock in the morning they aren't going to wait until opening times to get it like a good citizen, they will do whatever they need to do to get it.
Click to expand...

I did say all drugs, then I assumed you were talking about Heroin in your previous post, so I responded talking about heroin.

I don't disagree with you that people in the grip of heroin addiction are not right thinking people. But how does making drugs illegal help them in any way at all? How does it help anybody? The drugs being illegal does nothing to stop them taking it. Having to pay for the drugs means, if they are poor, they have to commit crime to fund their drug habit.

You say that administering a program of freely available heroin would not be able to be done without great expense. I agree, it would likely cost money. But how much does it cost to police the illegal drug trade at every level? The court cases, the prisons, all the crimes committed by addicts to get money to feed their habit? It might be that it's more cost effective, with fewer victims of crime and safer product for addicts who are gonna take the sh1t come what may, to give it to them free, legally.

I'd also say that smoking is legally available, yet because of government health campaigns against it, less people smoke now than they did 30 years ago. I know it has become more expensive, but I don't think it's a cost thing, cheap baccy is always available -- I think less people smoke because more people are aware of the damaging effects on health and less people start smoking as a result.

With something like Heroin, the negative effects are widely known already. I do not see a rush of people all going off and doing heroin just because it's there legally. As I've said before, if you really want some heroin, you'll go and get some anyway.
 
glasgowspur said:
But you are quoting figures and reports on conditions as they are, not on a scale likely to be caused by the legal availability of all drugs which is what dza is advocating.

It's my honest opinion based on my experience. I haven't tried to pass it off as anything and I'm certainly not trying to troll or start a long acrimonious debate like the vaccination damage one is.
You dismissed my comments with as a gut reaction, I've responded with my reasons as to why it's not a gut reaction.
Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to be insulting by calling your response a gut reaction, we all have plenty of gut reactions to a lot of issues. It just seemed to me that you were not particularly familiar with what is being done in terms of research and trial projects with "prescribed heroin" or the reasoning that goes with it. Your reaction was pretty much a stereotypical "I just learned about this, this seems crazy" reaction. My bad if I misinterpreted that, but you really gave no indication that you already knew about this stuff.

And when you state that someone's opinion on this is one of the dumbest things you've ever read and say that a serious trial project to manage drug addiction "seems crazy" you kinda have to expect a response. You were much more dismissive towards dza's opinion in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back