Planetarion Forums

1-X · 9 Nov 2003, 06:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

Hard drugs should be supplied free on the NHS to help sever the link between addiction and crime, says former cabinet minister Clare Short.

When I saw the headline, my first thought was "what is cows-arse (as Viz used to call her) shouting her loony mouth off about this time?" but after reading it I don't think it's such a bad idea.

I like the idea of drug barons/dealers being left without a market when their customers can get all they want for nothing (or am I being ridiculously naive here, and actually where would the NHS get their supply from?)

Does anyone have any better ideas? (assuming "treatment and rehabilitation" as the accepted solution that isn't working)

Nodrog · 9 Nov 2003, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

Does anyone have any better ideas?

legalise hard drugs and scrap the NHS

Phang · 9 Nov 2003, 10:16

legalize hard drugs and make sure they are freely, safely available but provide enormous penalties for DUI-style offences so as to promote responsible use.

And keep the NHS you hypercapitalist turdmonkey fs

G_frog · 9 Nov 2003, 11:33

The trouble with this policy is the "omg they're spending my taxes giving druggies heroin" reaction which would follow as night does day. this would scare off any mainstream party.

Dante Hicks · 9 Nov 2003, 14:31

If you legalised drugs, their cost would drop dramatically to the point where it'd be pointless to be a "dealer".

One of the main reasons drugs cost a lot is that every person in the production/distribution/selling chain is taking a large amount of risk, and they are therefore compensated for that. Also you have criminal monopolies at different stages which obviously inflate prices.

Since we live in a retarded country, I suspect that if you allowed hard drugs on prescription via the NHS they'd cost an insane amount of money (for the tax-payer), and you'd need an intense system of paperwork to support it.

The overall idea is sound though, although won't be implemented for reasons already explained by Giles.

Deffeh · 9 Nov 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you legalised drugs, their cost would drop dramatically to the point where it'd be pointless to be a "dealer".

One of the main reasons drugs cost a lot is that every person in the production/distribution/selling chain is taking a large amount of risk, and they are therefore compensated for that. Also you have criminal monopolies at different stages which obviously inflate prices.

Since we live in a retarded country, I suspect that if you allowed hard drugs on prescription via the NHS they'd cost an insane amount of money (for the tax-payer), and you'd need an intense system of paperwork to support it.

The overall idea is sound though, although won't be implemented for reasons already explained by Giles.

Almost everything you say falls down on the simple fact that you trust people too much. Dont you get it? People are too stupid to choose for themselves. 51% of people dont even vote, does that sound like a populous that will cope with drugs being legalised?
a. No
b. Yes

PS. Its a.

MrL_JaKiri · 9 Nov 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Almost everything you say falls down on the simple fact that you trust people too much. Dont you get it? People are too stupid to choose for themselves. 51% of people dont even vote, does that sound like a populous that will cope with drugs being legalised?
a. No
b. Yes

PS. Its a.

Everyone I know is a 20-a-day alcoholic!

ParraCida · 9 Nov 2003, 15:21

Hard drugs should not be legalized, they are proven to be extremely bad for your body over the long run. They should however be distributed freely to addicts in special clinics where they can for rehab/support/whatever.

madi · 9 Nov 2003, 15:26

i think all drugs should be legalised

fewer idiots left alive on the planet the better

m
x

Bob The Scutter · 9 Nov 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParraCida

Hard drugs should not be legalized, they are proven to be extremely bad for your body over the long run. They should however be distributed freely to addicts in special clinics where they can for rehab/support/whatever.

the same sorta system as when people quit smoking? where they use patches and get their "fix" of whatever is in the patch right?
thats the only way legalising hard drugs should go, and then if that does happen, punishments should be increased with manditory sentences.. saving on court cases and prosecution costs and such because if it does happen itll only get abused quickly

queball · 9 Nov 2003, 15:51

Hasn't this been our policy for forever? "The British Solution".

Bob The Scutter · 9 Nov 2003, 15:53

heh, i have an ace idea..

Russion Roulette the theiving bastard smack head style

take a gun, load it ofc, have as many people there as need be that want to take part. put a prize up for the winner, and let them shoot themselves until 1 is left standing. the one left standing gets his drugs...

itll get rid of a lot of the problematic people aswell as be entertaining

MrL_JaKiri · 9 Nov 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParraCida

Hard drugs should not be legalized, they are proven to be extremely bad for your body over the long run.

Like alcohol, smoking and cheese?

Nodrog · 9 Nov 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I am too stupid to choose for myself, so it logically follows that everyone else must be too

oic

Nodrog · 9 Nov 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

you are deluded with your great faith in humanity

Are you one of the 90% of people who are smarter than average?

Nodrog · 9 Nov 2003, 17:17

Seriously guys, arguing for drug laws is like arguing for creationism, or that the earth is flat, and has about as much rational evidence to support it as a credible position. The very act of saying that you adhere to it automatically invalidates any claim you might have had to be in a position to judge the intelligence of others.

Nodrog · 9 Nov 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

A stoner sitting in his room smoking pot has about as much relevence to the drug policy as a hamster eating a sesame seed.

this post doesnt make sense

madi · 9 Nov 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

Almost!!

The wonderful thing with all these 'well drugs should be legalised cos only shit people would take drugs and if they **** themselves up it wont matter to me and im not going to do it because im not shit' attitudes is they are terribly nieve and not at all thought out.

oh no, from me it is very well thought out

i think that it is a perfectly acceptable loss for some less idiotic people to die too

fewer idiots = better

Deffeh · 10 Nov 2003, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

oic

Im actually agreeing with Idimmu, which probably hasnt happened before, so it follows we must be right by the laws of shut the **** up

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Almost everything you say falls down on the simple fact that you trust people too much. Dont you get it?

I don't trust people one jot. I seriously expect if you made heroin ridiculously cheap that VAST amounts of people will kill themselves via drugs. I just don't mind if other people take their own lives. If heroin was as cheap and as pure as I'm advocating then people wouldn't have to steal to fund their habits (although with it being pure, their habits and lives wouldn't last long).

Not that substance abuse problems come out of nowhere - they're generally a symptom of alienation, social breakdown, malaise, etc.

Oh, and more than 51% of the people vote, not that has anything to do with anything. In the General Election (i.e. the only one that really matters) the turnout is generally higher than that. I'm not even registered to vote at the moment anyway - so by your odd logic I'm obviously "stupid". Some of the smartest people I know don't vote for a variety of reasons.

Deffeh · 10 Nov 2003, 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't trust people one jot. I seriously expect if you made heroin ridiculously cheap that VAST amounts of people will kill themselves via drugs. I just don't mind if other people take their own lives. If heroin was as cheap and as pure as I'm advocating then people wouldn't have to steal to fund their habits (although with it being pure, their habits and lives wouldn't last long).

Not that substance abuse problems come out of nowhere - they're generally a symptom of alienation, social breakdown, malaise, etc.

Oh, and more than 51% of the people vote, not that has anything to do with anything. In the General Election (i.e. the only one that really matters) the turnout is generally higher than that. I'm not even registered to vote at the moment anyway - so by your odd logic I'm obviously "stupid". Some of the smartest people I know don't vote for a variety of reasons.

In Scotland we didnt get 50% turnout for the last Scottish Parliament election, which was the last one i was counting, and its the figure that stuck in my head anyway. Im presuming this trend of apathy is going to continue anyway, and the UK will drop below 50 before too long.

JonnyBGood · 10 Nov 2003, 01:34

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard (slight exaggeration). You're now going to spend people's taxes on buying heroin for junkies. Fantastic.

PS I'm with nod's first post.

ParraCida · 10 Nov 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Like alcohol, smoking and cheese?

yeah lol and like traffic lol.

W · 10 Nov 2003, 01:47

It would be a more dangerous country to live in for sure. No matter what punishment you have for "manslaughter while under influence of drugs".

Nodrog · 10 Nov 2003, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

It would be a more dangerous country to live in for sure. No matter what punishment you have for "manslaughter while under influence of drugs".

BS. Bear in mind youre going to pretty much wipe out most drug related crime (gang wars and such like), as well as 99% of 'organised crime', overnight.

W · 10 Nov 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

BS. Bear in mind youre going to pretty much wipe out most drug related crime (gang wars and such like), as well as 99% of 'organised crime', overnight.

Which generally isn't much danger to civilians*. I'd go as far as saying that with todays legislation, people who do drugs cause more harm to civilians* than people involved with (be in transporting, getting money for, manufacturing, or organizing) them.

*)Civilians in this context being another word for people who don't and wouldn't do hard drugs, and have no involvement with them.

PS: What's NHS?

Edit: National Health Service am I right?

MrL_JaKiri · 10 Nov 2003, 02:46

National Health Service.

Nodrog · 10 Nov 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

Which generally isn't much danger to civilians*. I'd go as far as saying that with todays legislation, people who do drugs cause more harm to civilians* than people involved with (be in transporting, getting money for, manufacturing, or organizing) them.

*)Civilians in this context being another word for people who don't and wouldn't do hard drugs, and have no involvement with them.

Yeah I'm going to have ask for a source on that one.

W · 10 Nov 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yeah I'm going to have ask for a source on that one.

I picked it out of the air, but I'm always right, so you go find a source, and you'll see it confirms what I said.

Nodrog · 10 Nov 2003, 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

I picked it out of the air, but I'm always right, so you go find a source, and you'll see it confirms what I said.

nah man, youre wrong.

Radical Edward · 10 Nov 2003, 09:41

I am experiencing cognitive dissonance because W and Nodrog disagree.

Spearhead · 10 Nov 2003, 13:08

ladies and gentleman....i would like to point out that 99% of all politicians and leading ppl in this world are IN on the drugmoney so this wont happen anyway...good idea for the people bad idea for the mob and said politicians, so forget it :-) we live in a drugcrazed world were billions of dollars are made every month...forget it, wont every legalize such a lucrative thing....

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

Which generally isn't much danger to civilians*.

More organised dealers aren't somehow unique in terms of their enterprises. Any profits they make are obviously invested - often in other criminal activities.

Moreover, where drug users do harm, the majority of incidents aren't "Crazy Heroin Addict Stabs Old Woman For a Laugh!", but where people rob to pay artificially high prices. There's no reason why heroin is particularly expensive, other than the inordinate amount of risk attached to selling/manufacturing it (as mentioned). If price was reduced to a saner amount, there'd be much less reason for people to rob/etc to fund their habits.

sayonara · 10 Nov 2003, 13:32

I don't care if heroin users get off the doses or not, and I certainly don't care if drug gangs want to wipe each other out.

But I will make very loud noises if my hard-earned taxes go towards paying for smack for shiftless bums, instead of helping to prop up our struggling education system and what have you.

MrL_JaKiri · 10 Nov 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by sayonara

I don't care if heroin users get off the doses or not, and I certainly don't care if drug gangs want to wipe each other out.

But I will make very loud noises if my hard-earned taxes go towards paying for smack for shiftless bums, instead of helping to prop up our struggling education system and what have you.

Ignore the original point and go onto decriminilisation. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax.

Like ciggies, they'll make a tax profit, even factoring in NHS costs.

sayonara · 10 Nov 2003, 13:40

If I do as you suggest it'll turn into the Sayonara Vs Fafalone thing all over again.

PAGD just isn't ready for that kind of energy.

UK.gov could save a lot of red tape and encourage people to just walk around giving £20 notes to druggies.

PS - see AWF.

MrL_JaKiri · 10 Nov 2003, 13:43

Did do before you posted that

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sayonara

But I will make very loud noises if my hard-earned taxes go towards paying for smack for shiftless bums, instead of helping to prop up our struggling education system and what have you.

Much better your hard earned taxes go towards pointless police operations.

MrL_JaKiri · 10 Nov 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Much better your hard earned taxes go towards pointless police operations.

At least drug money is going to the police too.

Well, policemen.

sayonara · 10 Nov 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Much better your hard earned taxes go towards pointless police operations.

Actually, I happen to think so.

Mong · 10 Nov 2003, 14:31

I can get good E's for £1 each.

How many would you get on the NHS? Say they assume you want 3 for a decentish Saturday night. Do you then get 3 in a blister pack? Will they be good (like the current Red Bulls) or crap like those hexagon "E" ones at the mo? I ask because Methadone is supposed to be a pants substitue for Heroin, and all the weed used in govt trials is meant to be absoulte crap.

So anyway, say you get 3 per "prescription", how much is that? £6.25 I think? So I can buy 6 for £6 or 3 for £6.25?

Hrm...

M.

sayonara · 10 Nov 2003, 14:35

Mong, you forgot the cost of inappropriately giant packaging.

2 pills per prescription!

Mong · 10 Nov 2003, 15:53

Yeah, illegal pills come in little ziplock baggies...

(apparently!)

Mong · 10 Nov 2003, 16:16

Of course theres a link between Risk & Price.

The more risk, the higher the price.

*** All hypothetical, I've never made a penny profit from drugs ***

If I were to sell say, 5 pills to a mate, and I got them for £2 each, I'd probably sell for £2.50 each.

But then, if I got 100 pills at £1 each, I could shift them on to other small timers for like £1.50 each for buying 20 or more. Less risk in selling direct to trade.

If I were to sell say, 5 pills in a club, and I got them for £2 each, I'd probably sell for £5 each. In a club you risk the bouncers cos you're taking their business

and the police.

This is all in my (limited) experience anyway.

M.

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

Heroin is already cheap enough tbh.

Unless heroin is cheaper than cough mixture, or polo's, I doubt this is true.

sayonara · 10 Nov 2003, 16:41

I think he means that as far as he's concerned it can't be "too expensive".

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sayonara

I think he means that as far as he's concerned it can't be "too expensive".

Yeah, I know - but I was also referring to his "risk doesn't translate to price" which is absurd. Prices would drop in all drugs if there was no risk. How many people carry drugs on international flights? Probably quite a few, but I think a fair few people are disuaded from massive prison sentences.

If he's implying that the drugs market magically defies the laws of supply and demand then he's making an even more ludicrous point.

Aryn · 10 Nov 2003, 17:08

i counted out 200 morphine pills the other day
just thought i'd mention it

BesigedB · 10 Nov 2003, 17:54

Note how mong said he has never made profit.

Not that im implying anything

Dante Hicks · 10 Nov 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

Price has far more to do with availability of supply and demand than it does risk.

The level of supply is directly affected by the risk factor. If there was no risk involved in supplying drugs, why wouldn't everyone do it? It's a basically economic fact that prices would be reduced if you legalised drugs. This much is obvious...If it was legal, boots would sell the damn stuff.

And you can get a good 10-15 doses from one bottle of mixture. If you can get 10-15 doses of heroin for under 3 quid, I withdraw my comment.