What is the country coming to?

[Steveo]

Quoting garnet from 18:54, 13th Nov 2006
What about the people that use drugs and don't commit any crimes to fund their habit, should they be jailed? they are only 'harming' themselves.

Three problems:

1. How do you ensure that the user has caused no harm?
2. Drug production and trafficking are both very serious problems casusing a lot of problems, such as funding organised crime and other illegal, dangerous, harmful and evil operations (human trafficking often goes hand in hand with drugs).
3. By shifting the focus of the law away from the user, you will only encourage more people to use, without fear of prosecution.

It may be said that users cause no harm, but by softening the criminal stance more people will use, and a percentage (I'd say large percentage) of those new users will end up turning to crime.

Drug addiction dealt with as a health issue? Pull the other one. The justification for this was 'that's how it used to be'. Well, going back to that policy won't work, and here's why; Society has changed. The blame culture of non-responsibility we have today provides justification to these drug addicts to blame a society that failed them, and gives free license to commit any number of crimes they like, all because they went to a secondary-modern, or were from a single parent family. These days people don't take responsibility, and by shifting the focus away from criminal punishment, the license to to terrible things int he name of a broken background will only be made easier and lower the risk to the user.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Lid]

Why are so many missing the point?

These people are convicted criminals, in most cases convicted for drugs offences. We can debate the rights and wrongs of criminal justice regarding drugs intake, but in the status quo, drug use is illegal.

Those that are convicted know full well that it is illegal, they are removed from society for breaking the law. How irresponsible is it of society to take them off the streets, for breaking the law by taking drugs, and then keep feeding them with the very thing they broke the law taking?

I don't see how breaking the law, and then making society continue to feed your habit (albeit weaning off, over years, I understand this) can be a human right.

The harm principle which people keep bringing up is a completely separate (albeit valid) argument entirely.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[oddly familiar]

Quoting DrAlex from 18:46, 13th Nov 2006
How can you mention these two things in the same post?

Prison isn't just about punishment, it's also to do with the fact that criminals may pose a threat to the rest of us. Drug-related crime certainly falls under that category.

But what I mean is this: That on its own, drug usage is only self harm. The drug related crime that goes with it is a result of the criminalisation (is that a word? or did I just make it up?) of the drug use. If junkies were treated as patients, then they would be given their heroin by the doctors, during a weaning-off process. That would significantly reduce the amount of drug-related crime because they would not be needing to pay for their addiction. I accept that not every person would want to be weaned off, some people will want to continue being addicts, and they may well turn to crime to feed their addiction, but that number would be smaller than at present because some people would be being treated. As far as I'm aware, many addicts go straight back into their addiction once they have left jail. That doesnt help anyone.

I also don't agree that it would increase the number of addicts overall, as steveo says, because the doctors won't be giving out drugs to non-users will they? The first experience will still come from drugs bought from a dealer. Dealers are probably already at market saturation, so reducing the number of dependants through treatment/counselling will only reduce the market available to those dealers, meaning that there will be fewer dealers. As long as the police keep up the pressure on suppliers and dealers (in fact, maybe increase that pressure using the manpower freed up from busting users) then there is no reason why the number of dealers should go up, in fact, it should go down.

(sorry for all the edits, should of read this thing through for typos etc.)

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru, ne?

[Steveo]

Quoting oddly familiar from 19:43, 13th Nov 2006

But what I mean is this: That on its own, drug usage is only self harm. The drug related crime that goes with it is a result of the criminalisation (is that a word? or did I just make it up?) of the drug use.

NO IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T.

I've already said - drug production and trafficking are major funders of organised crime and the likes.

Also, I'm not saying treatment will increase use - I'm saying shifting focus from the criminal aspects will. If it looks like drug use is less risky in terms of run ins with the law, use will increase and become more prominent in society.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Al]

Quoting Lid from 19:27, 13th Nov 2006
drug use is illegal.

No it's not. It is not an offence, in law, to use a drug. The law forbids possession and supply but not use.

[oddly familiar]

Quoting Steveo from 19:50, 13th Nov 2006

NO IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T.

Yes it bloody well is.

If a large number of the users were being supplied their medicinal drugs by the health service then they wouldnt be getting them from any supply which would be linked with organised crime. Where do you think the morphine they use in hospitals comes from? The dodgy guy down the street who's proceeds go to fund terrorism?

So a greater percentage of the users would be getting their drugs from a non-criminal source.

As for shifting focus from the criminal aspects of it, well, keeping the focus on the criminal aspects hasnt done a blind bit of good yet has it? Isn't it time to stop flogging that dead horse and go for an approach which might actually WORK?

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru, ne?

[[James]]

Quoting Haunted from 17:18, 13th Nov 2006
Here's a question, where is the government going to get the heroin to plug these junkies with?

They would be administered with methadone, obviously. It would be the same procedure as the existing rehabilitation programmes.

[hr]

http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/antispam.html

[DrAlex]

There is some evidence to suggest that rehabilitation programs in prisons can lessen the chance that they reoffend after they are released. This would cause less money overall spent in the long run.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Steveo]

Quoting oddly familiar from 19:58, 13th Nov 2006

Quoting Steveo from 19:50, 13th Nov 2006

NO IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T.

Yes it bloody well is.

If a large number of the users were being supplied their medicinal drugs by the health service then they wouldnt be getting them from any supply which would be linked with organised crime. Where do you think the morphine they use in hospitals comes from? The dodgy guy down the street who's proceeds go to fund terrorism?

So a greater percentage of the users would be getting their drugs from a non-criminal source.

As for shifting focus from the criminal aspects of it, well, keeping the focus on the criminal aspects hasnt done a blind bit of good yet has it? Isn't it time to stop flogging that dead horse and go for an approach which might actually WORK?

I'd say the current approach is acting like a dam, holding back the tide of drug abuse.

Also, do you think supplying legal drugs will stop suppliers? Do you think the people making huge amounts of money from drugs will just stop? Don't be so naive. They'll start flooding the market with even cheaper, less pure, more dangerous poisons.

That, however, is the argument I have against legalisation.

As for your half-hearted, go between solution, well, let me see. You're arguing that large amounts of money be spent on treating a small number, while leaving the rest of the users to go to a dealer?

If you're going to something, no matter how idiotic, you could at least have the courage of your convictions and propose completely fucking everything up even more.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Steveo]

Quoting DrAlex from 20:14, 13th Nov 2006
There is some evidence to suggest that rehabilitation programs in prisons can lessen the chance that they reoffend after they are released. This would cause less money overall spent in the long run.

I say going cold turkey is the best rehabilitation. Get them off the drug rather than throwing money at these people in the form of methadone etc, and never completely removing the addiction by the time they leave jail on early tag release to go rob another pensioner for drug money.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Senethro]

Quoting Steveo from 20:18, 13th Nov 2006

Quoting DrAlex from 20:14, 13th Nov 2006
There is some evidence to suggest that rehabilitation programs in prisons can lessen the chance that they reoffend after they are released. This would cause less money overall spent in the long run.

I say going cold turkey is the best rehabilitation. Get them off the drug rather than throwing money at these people in the form of methadone etc, and never completely removing the addiction by the time they leave jail on early tag release to go rob another pensioner for drug money.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

Steve is a qualified doctor!

[jequirity]

Send em to Siberia

[hr]

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Andrew W K Day 9th of May

[Steveo]

Quoting Senethro from 20:20, 13th Nov 2006
Steve is a qualified doctor!

A PhD in common bloody sense and a special interest in not caring for these people, who simply don't deserve compassion.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[DrAlex]

Quoting Steveo from 20:18, 13th Nov 2006
I say going cold turkey is the best rehabilitation. Get them off the drug rather than throwing money at these people in the form of methadone etc, and never completely removing the addiction by the time they leave jail on early tag release to go rob another pensioner for drug money.

Forcing someone to stop using a drug may be the best way to get them clean, but I doubt it's merit as a true rehabilitation strategy. It's a bit like the chronic fad-dieter versus the person who is taught the basic principles of health and nutrition. Without a change in the relevant patterns of behaviour, (former) addicts are likely to start using again.

I feel I may have to take my leave of this debate, as the phrase "patterns of behaviour" has been uttered.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Senethro]

Quoting Steveo from 20:25, 13th Nov 2006

Quoting Senethro from 20:20, 13th Nov 2006
Steve is a qualified doctor!

A PhD in common bloody sense and a special interest in not caring for these people, who simply don't deserve compassion.

Seriously, offer an alternative for some of these people. Carrot and stick and all that.

Or is it just that holding the stick makes you feel big?

Or is it that you need to assert that YOU are not like them, not an addict or prone to addiction.

[The Dude]

Quoting Steveo from 19:50, 13th Nov 2006

Quoting oddly familiar from 19:43, 13th Nov 2006

But what I mean is this: That on its own, drug usage is only self harm. The drug related crime that goes with it is a result of the criminalisation (is that a word? or did I just make it up?) of the drug use.

NO IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T.

I've already said - drug production and trafficking are major funders of organised crime and the likes.

Also, I'm not saying treatment will increase use - I'm saying shifting focus from the criminal aspects will. If it looks like drug use is less risky in terms of run ins with the law, use will increase and become more prominent in society.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

Alcohol is a strong drug. Over use can cause imediate death in some cases and a slow painful death over many years in others. Unlike illegal drugs such as marijuana it can cause users to become violent causing harm to them selves and others. While heroin is a much stronger drug it does not change the fact that a drunk individual is more prone to cause harm than one who has just taken a hit. Being that this is all true there is no mention of alcohol being a root of organized crime and a funding mechanism of terrorism in this day in age. The worst that the producers of it can inflict on the world is watery lager. The reason for this is that it is a controlled legal substance. When it was made illegal in the US durring prohabition, selling alcohol created a funded a great deal of our organized crime. Removing the legality of usage will allow for the drug to be conforted fro what it is and not as a crime. This will allow for more people to seek treatment and prevent situations such as this one where treatment (or lack there of) is at the whim of the prison service.

[angel_kohaku]

Human rights aside think about this.

You graduate, get a nice job, earn lots of money. Then YOUR taxes go to keeping criminal drug addicts supplied with heroin?

[hr]

I have always depended on the kindness of strangers

[Steveo]

Quoting the dude from 20:32, 13th Nov 2006
Removing the ilegality of usage will allow for the drug to be confronted for what it is and not as a crime. This will allow for more people to seek treatment and prevent situations such as this one where treatment (or lack there of) is at the whim of the prison service.

As I've said - do you seriously think that drug suppliers (not dealers, I'm talking about the big boys here) will take this lying down? So much money, lost.

No, they'll sell cheap alternatives to the legal stuff. Marijuana perhaps may work legalised, it's a reasonably 'soft' drug (although I'd have it reclassified as a class B drug myself, sends out the wrong message).

Heroin and whatnot - no. The suppliers will sell cheap knockoffs of the legal stuff, killing countless people who will keep going to the cheap rip offs, taking that risk because they can't justify spending more on the quality merchandise.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[novium]

i hear the treatment for cancer is very painful too, but that doesn't make it torture.

Quoting Mehmsy from 17:02, 13th Nov 2006
I don't see what the big fuss is all about. How is this ridiculous?

When people are addicted to heroin, their dependency for the substance becomes something entirely physical--and when they go cold turkey, they actually suffer pain and other horrible things.

I say that denying them access to heroin - when they are addicted to it - is to cause them sustained pain over a period of time. How is this different from torture?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106593

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[oddly familiar]

Quoting Steveo from 20:16, 13th Nov 2006

As for your half-hearted, go between solution, well, let me see. You're arguing that large amounts of money be spent on treating a small number, while leaving the rest of the users to go to a dealer?

If you're going to something, no matter how idiotic, you could at least have the courage of your convictions and propose completely fucking everything up even more.

Sorry, but I fail to see how that is a half hearted solution. Its practical, doesnt involve punishing people who are suffering from an addiction which they may well not be able to do anything about themselves, and will reduce the number of addicts overall.

And yes, I'm saying that as with all health issues, money is spent on a minority of people. The total number of addicts will not go up, and some of those who are addicted will be treated and hopefully cured. The current method doesnt do that. It doesn't encourage anyone not to take drugs again after their 'punishment' and the result is the increase in addicts that you see. Treatment is a way of REDUCING the number of addicts.

As the dude pointed out, prohibition never works.

Also, if this is a half hearted solution, what would be (in what you think of as my eyes) a full hearted solution? I can't think of much else you can do beyond what has already been suggested.

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru, ne?