Finally a Nation with some Balls...

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Bugsy, so just by reading the wiki link, you say that there is nothing wrong with regular constipation - and potential bowel cancer. Nothing wrong with collapsed veins though IV use, and nothing wrong with a drug that affects the valves of your heart?
Did you, er, “overlook” the word “possible”. I wonder why. If you read the “washing instructions” inside every pack of prescribed drugs, which by law have to contain ALL “possible” side-effects, you might have second thoughts about taking them. In practice, such side-effects don’t really show up.

Milligans of folks suffer from constipation, even without heroin, for various reasons. They seem to manage quite well with mild laxatives. And to dramatise the whole thing with “potential bowel cancer” should be a bit embarrassing for you. But apparently it’s not. Bowel cancer can also strike those who have regular movements, y’know?


MsG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you, er, “overlook” the word “possible”. I wonder why. If you read the “washing instructions” inside every pack of prescribed drugs, which by law have to contain ALL “possible” side-effects, you might have second thoughts about taking them. In practice, such side-effects don’t really show up.

Milligans of folks suffer from constipation, even without heroin, for various reasons. They seem to manage quite well with mild laxatives. And to dramatise the whole thing with “potential bowel cancer” should be a bit embarrassing for you. But apparently it’s not. Bowel cancer can also strike those who have regular movements, y’know?

So you’ve nothing to add to the discussion, but just thought you’d take the opportunity to have another pathetic, moronic cheap shot at me, eh? How old are you? Ten?

MsG
Bugsy, it's like you're comparing heroin to a stick of gum or something.
You've finally got your semi-serious debate on drugs that you've always wanted, but don't try and bullshit that smack is no more dangerous than say; a Vicks inhaler (which if memory serves me correctly, is also on the list that athletes are banned from taking). Fine. Argue the rights and wrongs of the criminalisation of drugs, but stop with the crap that addictive substances are not harmful. The VERY least that addictive substances do is to cause is inter-family conflict.
 
Do you know what? Some of you lot really should have your little icons removed from you.
Anyone who believes that drugs should be legalised really hasn't thought this though.

Exactly. Also, what about addiction? Where are addicts going to keep getting a ready supply of cash from to pay for their addiction? Benefits? Oh thats right they will resort to stealing. Or what if the place (Chemist for instance) that sells it to them turns round and says that "no, sorry, you've had your quota for this week". Is the druggie cnut just gonna say "oh well, I'll have to wait til next week then. Are they bollocks. They're going to steal it.
Then we're on on another merry go-round.
The only way that you would stop the illicit trade is by giving away drugs for free and in unrestricted quantities. For the amount of users who regularly take drugs it just isn't viable.
Shouldn't you do the same with alcohol then, or do winos never steal things so they can get another "fix"?

The point being made is that what is currently being called "The War on Drugs" was lost on the first day they decided to bring in any form of prohibition and the availability of substances has hardly been decreased. It doesn't matter if it is a country with a hardline attitude to narcotics, like Indonesia, or one with a "softer" attitude like the UK (as far as punishment for possession, etc, goes), the funds and resources spent over the last 90+ years (first UK law banning some narcotics was in 1920) has had absolutely no effect whatsoever in regard to preventing the use, availability and production/importation of assorted narcotics. Now, we can continue to throw money away fighting a losing battle against what seems to be an increasing trade, or we can try something different to try and break at least some of the circle of illegality surrounding narcotics from production to use, and maybe stop some from getting on that merry-go-round in the first place (the local "council" over in Eindhoven had a whizzo idea to hit the illegal trade in marijuana, they wanted to grow it themselves, supply the coffee shops in the area, and rake in the profits for themselves. It would never stop the illegal trade, but it would knock a hell of a big chunk out of it if done properly. That was in 2013, not heard anything else about it since, there are several legal hurdles that would have to be cleared before they could even think about allowing it to happen).

It's time for change, the "Ban It and Burn Them" approach has been an abject and embarrassing failure at an incredible cost which has led to criminal groups flourishing to take advantage of that failure. Something has to give, and although you will never kill off the illegal supply you can at least put a big dent in the demand for it which will reduce the levels of crime related to narcotics.

Oh, hang on, you don't believe me, you think that they'll be out thieving and mugging in next to no time. Well, unfortunately, there is evidence that contradicts that viewpoint...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8255418.stm

Expenditure down (no need to steal so much to feed habit), crime rate down (no need to steal so much to feed habit). Sure, and this was in 2009, the scheme was expensive at £15k per annum per user, but compared to the effects each and every one of those on that scheme would have had on society as they fed their addiction (Crime by those on the scheme being down by over 66% would more than cover the cost of the "treatment") I would call it a price worth paying.
 
What has that got to do with anything? Legalisation of drugs would encourage more and more use - particularly in the first couple of generations.
Nonsense. Empirical evidence from Portugal and Holland tell us otherwise.
 
OK Freddy. Instead of name calling and making stuff up, how about you argue your side of the debate?
Read the page below and then argue against it, or maybe you agree!.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths3.htm

In conclusion, drugs produce three types of crime: purchase-related crime, drug-induced crime, and black market crime. To the extent that legalizing drugs would make them cheaper - a point on which all sides of the debate agree - it would create many new addicts and the incidence of purchase-related crime and drug-induced crime would increase. Furthermore, if there were any regulations or taxes of any sort placed upon the legalized drugs, U.S. history proves that the black market crime would continue. Thus, legalizing drugs not only does not decrease criminal behavior, it almost certainly would spur its increase.
And, again, empirical evidence from Portugal and Holland tells us otherwise.
 
On the contrary.


http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths2.htm

History also supports the fact that legalization would increase addiction rates. When opium was legal in the United States at the turn of the century, we had proportionately between two and three times the number of addicts than we do presently.23 Furthermore, Dr. Richard Schwartz, Professor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine, notes that Alaska and Oregon, the states that traditionally have had the most lenient drug laws, also have the highest marijuana addiction rates in the United States double the national average.24


Finally, foreign countries that have relaxed drug laws have seen an increase in addiction rates [see Chapter Three].


In short, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are dangerous and highly addictive substances. Scholarly opinion, historical evidence, and common sense suggest that if these drugs are legalized, then the rates of addiction will skyrocket, leading to misery and death.


2 See Chapters Two and Four for additional discussion of whether legalizing drugs would indeed allow us to shift resources from criminal prosecution to treatment and rehabilitation.
Yet again, empirical evidence from Holland and Portugal tells us otherwise.
 
M

MotorBoat

Guest
I like that post, fair points there regarding the law abiding general public. However what I can't get my little head around is how it will be managed and administered. Let's face it every large scale project that the government, (no matter who is in power) gets involved in or any scheme they come up with ends in a massive over spend and no end product or a product that is not fit for purpose.
I think like you we could argue till we're blue in the face or the cows come home or until hell freezes over and we (posters on Arrse)still wouldn't agree.
That's what makes this site entertaining and informative.
Now who's for a pint?
Agreed, could it be privatised (with heavy, heavy oversight of course)? I can see the unethical implications of that, but surely exposing such a venture to the free market would help to eliminate the inefficiencies characteristic of public projects.

I'm sure someone could come up with an analogy of such a venture, but one escapes me at this time
 
M

MotorBoat

Guest
I'd give the job to my local postmistress, a gimlet eyed harridan who is an absolute star on benefits Tuesdays when the pram pushing queue stretch's around the corner. Standing erect behind her counter, a sort of Smaug with spectacles.
my bold

The thought of such a woman makes me erect
 
I agree that a new grown up sensible strategy is long overdue. Granted. But in my opinion legalisation isn't the way.
Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. [Herbert D. Kleber, "Our Current Approach to Drug Abuse - Progress, Problems, Proposals," The New England Journal of Medicine, February 1994]


Cheap available drugs would increase addiction; only 10% of drinkers become hooked, while an estimated 75% of regular drug (crack) users could become addicts. [George Church, "Thinking the Unthinkable," Time, May 30,1988.]



Whilst I agree alcohol causes all sorts of social and ecconomic problems. The fact remains it is legal. Decriminalising class A drugs is not going to improve anyones standard of living.
Banning alcohol certainly would improve the standard of living of an incredible amount of people. Why don't you want that to happen?

Oh, copying and pasting "quotes" which includes one from a journalist, meaning he is hardly any sort of expert, does not help your cause.
 
M

MotorBoat

Guest
I'm being silly, we'll nobody on here as said how this cuckoo idea would be funded. Nobody has said how the junkies, who would still need a fix after they have had their government hand out of Heroin will be catered for. It's a daft idea, as I've said before, write to your MP, or better still stand for parliament on this free drugs for all and totally legal drug ticket. Let me and others know how you get on.
Edited to add, I'm off for an afternoon kip, retirement is good.
my bold

I said a while back, but can't be arsed to find the post, that the reduction in law enforcement costs could go some way toward funding the costs. If the UK set up an opiate trade agreement with, lets say, Afghan, we could set up a public company to source and produce medicinal grade opiates. Then from the profits, we could fund such a drug administration scheme.

I'm sure there's holes in the idea and I'm no politician. But if a dumbo like me can come up with that idea in 5mins imagine what the government do!
 
And you wonder why Arrser's don't take you seriously!

Side effects from heroin abuse and addiction vary as the disease progresses. Other chemical dependency may impact the presentation of complications and side effects of heroin use.

Following heroin consumption, the user experiences a "rush" that is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities. Given the challenge of precisely calibrating the dosage of such a powerful narcotic, this initial rush can frequently be followed by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching.

Short-term physical side effects of heroin use include:

  • Depressed respiration (shallow breathing)
  • Clouded mental functioning
  • Decreased pain from either physical conditions or emotional challenges
  • Uncontrollable feelings of itching that result in compulsive scratching or picking at skin (itchy blood)
Heroin abuse and dependence produce serious medical side effects, which may directly or indirectly result in death:

  • Heart problems, including infection of heart lining and valves
  • Infectious diseases spread by shared needles (HIV and hepatitis B and C)
  • Chronic pneumonia or other pulmonary diseases
  • Blood clots or tissue death resulting from collapsed veins or impurities
  • Bacterial infections
  • Liver disease
  • Arthritis and other rheumatologic problems
  • Seizures
Because heroin addicts do not know what the strength of the heroin purchased on the street may be or what it may be mixed with, they are at risk of overdose or death. Studies show that after five years of use the average heroin user has a ninety percent chance of having contracted hepatitis C. A person injecting heroin is also at high risk for the transmission of HIV and other diseases from sharing non-sterile needles.
Dear oh dear
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
The main point though is that your way, prohibition, massive punishments, death for smuggling - all that sort of stuff.

Doesn't work.

Doesn't even slow the trade down in any realistic way.

If you are even slightly honest you will see that this is the case but you have no other solution except to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result - which is the very definition of insanity.

Something has to change and if you look around the world you will see that a move towards legalisation is what is happening so there must be a terrible amount of "pro-druggy" types out there including people who tell you what is illegal.
Insanity, hmm we'll there are a lot of law enforcement officers and judicial staff around the world. More than a few who I dare say are a tad more intelligent and have a tad more knowledge about what is going on and the effects of drugs than all the posters on Arrse combined.
I have not heard anything so daft as to think that these junkies would keep to their medicated dose of Heroin or crack or what ever you want to give them. These people even even attempt to get their hands on increased amounts of methadone FFS. If any of you have had any dealings with these people then you would know that he only cure is cold turkey, get them off it get them clean get them in a job. Pandering to them will NOT work, you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously think these people are reasonable human beings. Whilst under the influence and whilst craving the next fix they are not, believe me they are not!
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Bugsy, it's like you're comparing heroin to a stick of gum or something.

You've finally got your semi-serious debate on drugs that you've always wanted, but don't try and bullshit that smack is no more dangerous than say; a Vicks inhaler (which if memory serves me correctly, is also on the list that athletes are banned from taking). Fine. Argue the rights and wrongs of the criminalisation of drugs, but stop with the crap that addictive substances are not harmful. The VERY least that addictive substances do is to cause is inter-family conflict.
I’m not comparing anything to anything. I’ve never encouraged the use of heroin and my own advice would be to stay away from it. However, if someone’s going to get addicted to something, then heroin is a much better choice than, say, alk, simply because it’s not as dangerous.

Let me furnish you with a few facts. I can’t speak for the UK, since I was never involved in the drugs market here, but I do know a lot about northern Italy and Switzerland. In both countries the vast majority of “junkies” were middle or upper class. And when I say vast majority, I mean something like 85 to 90 percent. They’re the ones who support the dope trade (smack and Charlie) in both countries, where the dealers, due to their “connections”, enjoy virtual immunity (as happened to me, too). Those aren’t the folks you see hanging around on street corners begging for loose change or flogging their mutton. They’ve no need to do that. I’ve no reason to suppose that a similar setup doesn’t operate in the UK. So they’re quite happy with the set-up as it is and actually fear that legalisation would expose them to the typical, knee-jerk condemnation afforded to “junkies”. Which is also not helpful in propagating a more enlightened and mature attitude and actually making life easier for the majority of the population

The second point I’d like to make is the general attitude to “illegal” drugs in the UK and which makes it difficult to win folks over to a more reasonable line. The so-called “illegal drugs were made so on a completely arbitrary basis, by folks who were evangelistic about an authoritarian approach. The “let’s-just-ban-it” brigade. Such drugs are deemed “sissy” by many folks. Taken by “losers” and “hippies”, etc. They’re not “manly” drugs like alk and baccy and so deserve the scorn of “real men”. There’s actually no logic at all to such an argument, but it does prevent a different and more realistic opinion taking hold.

Drugs and the problems associated with their illegality are not going to go away simply because we fail to address the issue properly. There’s an urgent need to realign antiquated and authoritarian drug policies with the empirical results of decades of experimentation with them, to arrive at a reasonable arrangement that satisfies the bulk of society. But to do that, there also has to be a concerted campaign to come clean about drugs and provide truthful, genuine and helpful information about them. As long as that doesn’t happen, there’ll be no change, because then no-one can make a truly informed choice. Of course, the obvious message should be: “If you can do without drugs, then don’t touch them”, while at the same time pointing out that those who feel they can’t function without drugs can, if they wish, approach judgemental-free helpers with their underlying problems.

MsG
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Christ almighty Bugsy it didn't take you long did it, so come on are you saying that these junkies do not crave more methadone? Are you calling me a liar?
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I’m not comparing anything to anything. I’ve never encouraged the use of heroin and my own advice would be to stay away from it. However, if someone’s going to get addicted to something, then heroin is a much better choice than, say, alk, simply because it’s not as dangerous.

Let me furnish you with a few facts. I can’t speak for the UK, since I was never involved in the drugs market here, but I do know a lot about northern Italy and Switzerland. In both countries the vast majority of “junkies” were middle or upper class. And when I say vast majority, I mean something like 85 to 90 percent. They’re the ones who support the dope trade (smack and Charlie) in both countries, where the dealers, due to their “connections”, enjoy virtual immunity (as happened to me, too). Those aren’t the folks you see hanging around on street corners begging for loose change or flogging their mutton. They’ve no need to do that. I’ve no reason to suppose that a similar setup doesn’t operate in the UK. So they’re quite happy with the set-up as it is and actually fear that legalisation would expose them to the typical, knee-jerk condemnation afforded to “junkies”. Which is also not helpful in propagating a more enlightened and mature attitude and actually making life easier for the majority of the population

The second point I’d like to make is the general attitude to “illegal” drugs in the UK and which makes it difficult to win folks over to a more reasonable line. The so-called “illegal drugs were made so on a completely arbitrary basis, by folks who were evangelistic about an authoritarian approach. The “let’s-just-ban-it” brigade. Such drugs are deemed “sissy” by many folks. Taken by “losers” and “hippies”, etc. They’re not “manly” drugs like alk and baccy and so deserve the scorn of “real men”. There’s actually no logic at all to such an argument, but it does prevent a different and more realistic opinion taking hold.

Drugs and the problems associated with their illegality are not going to go away simply because we fail to address the issue properly. There’s an urgent need to realign antiquated and authoritarian drug policies with the empirical results of decades of experimentation with them, to arrive at a reasonable arrangement that satisfies the bulk of society. But to do that, there also has to be a concerted campaign to come clean about drugs and provide truthful, genuine and helpful information about them. As long as that doesn’t happen, there’ll be no change, because then no-one can make a truly informed choice. Of course, the obvious message should be: “If you can do without drugs, then don’t touch them”, while at the same time pointing out that those who feel they can’t function without drugs can, if they wish, approach judgemental-free helpers with their underlying problems.

MsG
The first sentence and you say you have never encouraged the use of Heroin yet you openly bragged about been a mule in the opening posts of this thread. You need a good memory to be a liar Bugsy.
 

SupremeSpod

Old-Salt
Agreed but I was was failing to be funny.

The raw cost of these drugs is pennies; Cannabis should cost the same as cabbages. Heroin costs 80 quid a gram street but you can grow 20kg per acre a year in Norfolk (160k Per annum per acre!). It's the criminality that causes all the toxic side effects, family breakdown, pushing, prostitution etc. Illegality has not stopped drug use, but has caused massive harm. Legality would still have the drug use, possibly more, but the negative effects would be trivial.
Now just hang on, there are plenty of people who have a spliff in their car, on motorways!

You can smell the bastards, it's not safe and it's illegal. I for one want to get back to my home on a Friday, I don't want some high as a kite wanker who thinks he's cool 'cos he smokes weed taking out a few lanes of traffic and me with him.

Call me old fashioned.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
The first sentence and you say you have never encouraged the use of Heroin yet you openly bragged about been a mule in the opening posts of this thread. You need a good memory to be a liar Bugsy.
I never "bragged" about anything. And I wasn't a "mule", I was a dealer. I made that information available to establish my credentials on the subject, that's all. I never encouraged anyone at any time to start with heroin and I only sold my gear to those who requested it.

MsG
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top