New Information Regarding Police Seizures of Overgrow.com

Kama

No, I don't, but if these drugs were solely available through illegal means, it seems more likely (to me, unjustified claim ahoy!) they would be abused than in a regulated environment.

I'm not exactly lalalibertarian on drugs; I think they should be regulated, quite strictly in terms of available amounts for safety considerations, and consumed in a licensed manner, often under supervision initially. As has been argued, a significant proportion of the harm seems due to the contexts in which illegal drugs are produced and consumed.

Boggle

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

Interesting point here. On one hand you have the current situation where you can't even buy 2 box's of paracetamol which is ridiculous. And on the other you have an array of quacks out there who's first answer is to prescribe anti-biotics and anti-depressants as the quick-fix solution.

Personally, I used to suffer from asthma and was constantly sick when younger. Everytime I went to the doctor I was given the same automatic treatment to the point where I just gave up going as I decided that over use was doing more damage than riding out whatever was wrong with me. In the end I took up athletics and rowing to the point where I used to run 50 miles a week in the winter. Needless to say this cured my asthma and I've never looked back.

So in answer to your question: People need to use their own common sense and good judgement in all matters no matter whether its legal or not.

BTW: As far as I know, constant recreational use of anti-d's and anti-b's would be FAR more damaging and dangerous than hash. Open to correction on this though...(Could be that they just want to keep their doctor buddies in the green:P)

extragon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

No, though in most of the world you can freely purchase antibiotics. What I think is that a heroin addict should be allowed to stay on heroin for as long as he or she wants - under medical supervision - and without the moral input of politicians and others who care nothing about the pharmacology and basically use these people to score points.

Most people could live a stable, fairly productive life with a safe heroin supply - it's been tried in Switzerland, and other places - and suffer no more bodily risk than being on antidepressants, and be easily weaned off it, but ONLY when that person feels the time is right. Other drugs are more complicated, but surely a standardized E tablet that comes with instructions is better than what passes for control at the moment.

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

So in answer to your question: People need to use their own common sense and good judgement in all matters no matter whether its legal or not.

Of course, because peoples common sense is always right, in fact far superior to the medical knowledge doctors and pharmacists learn in their 5-6 years of study. :rolleyes: The common sense approach to an amputation would be a saw. I wonder how that would work out compared to a proper operation in a hospital.

extragon wrote: »

And turgon, "hard drugs" like heroin ( diamorphine ) are "medicines" in that addicts "prescribe" them to themselves to manage their own psychological or social problems.

Yes, using their indepth medical knowledge of what they are actually doing.

extragon wrote: »

What I think is that a heroin addict should be allowed to stay on heroin for as long as he or she wants.

And who pays for this? What does the heroin addict work at when high? And if they are addicted how do you expect them to have low peroids when they can work to feed their addiction?

Kama

And who pays for this?

In the case of a physiologcal addict, it seems more economical to pay the small fee for a maintenance dose of diamorphine (directly, through the health system) than to pay the resulting social costs (indirectly, through crime and the justice system) of an addict who commits crime to fill the same 'prescription' in a black market scenario. Soemone has to pay either way; which cost would you prefer to pay? Someone is going to pay anyway.

Again, a normalised and manageable legislated scenario versus a irregular and chaotic unregulated scenario; you pays your money and you takes your chances. I would argue the risks and costs are higher in the latter.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

In the case of a physiologcal addict, it seems more economical to pay the small fee for a maintenance dose of diamorphine

Someone gets addicted so the rest have to pay to keep him happy?

Boggle

Of course, because peoples common sense is always right, in fact far superior to the medical knowledge doctors and pharmacists learn in their 5-6 years of study. The common sense approach to an amputation would be a saw. I wonder how that would work out compared to a proper operation in a hospital.

Well, I haven't owned an inhaler in 12 years so don't be too quick to dismiss common sense. And if your common sense implies that an amputation should be carried out using a chop-saw well... what can anyone say to that kind of statement?!?
Nice way of not dealing with a post btw.

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

Nice way of not dealing with a post btw.

On the contrary I was just highlighting how ridiculous saying people should use their common sense in medical matters instead of just trusting those with so much experience in the field is.

extragon

turgon wrote: »

Yes, using their indepth medical knowledge of what they are actually doing.

They'd get it from a health worker who'd supervise them, though some programmes, as in the UK, don't work as they should being designed to get the addict off heroin ( whether they want to or not ) for reasons that are essentially moral.

turgon wrote: »

And who pays for this?

A legal 10 mg amp of heroin would cost about GBP £3. with tablets at £12 for 100. ( source: BNF )
Maybe they'd work? In Switzerland most addicts do. Having them on heroin is probably no more expensive than sleeping tablets, tranquillisers etc.

RDM_83

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/drugs_now_legal_if_user_is

Felt I should throw this in there, too me makes as much sense as any other "solution".

Kama

Someone gets addicted so the rest have to pay to keep him happy?

Again, don't seem to be addressing. I said pretty clearly there are costs both ways, and you have a choice as to which you want to pay.

And given the cjhoice between keeping an addict 'happy', as in not in withdrawal, and 'unhappy', as in criminalised and essentially increasing their likelihood of crime, happy it is. The argument that they should be as unhappy, stigmatised, and penalised as possible = current drug laws. Which is what we are mostly critiquing. And note, most of the time we are saying the response is just a moral one, as in your 'happy addicts' jibe. A heroin addict is not in a 'happy' place on the whole; to try and make their position worse seems to be kicking when down.

THe evidence-based questions are:

Does addiction rates increase, or increase faster, and are the social costs of drug use higher, in a criminalised or a legalised regime? This is the basic operational point for a sane social policy. Everything else is somewhat secondary to me.

Kama

Wow, the onion link is both funny and really cold, given that in many ways thats what we have. Conviction and sentencing rates already do this, in essence, so an 'economic distribution of justice' is the result.

turgon

Ok Kama, let me summerise your argument. Mr. D gets addicted to heroin. You are describing the two solutions: one where Mr. D is put into a clinic, and is forced off the drugs (the 'unhappy' choice). The second is Mr. D's heroin is provided by the state free of charge for the duration of his addiction: presumably the rest of his life.

So via plan 2 Mr D now is high off heroin the whole time. He is useless to employers: just like your not allowed go to work drunk. He is sponging off the system: us paying for him will apparently never end. It seems an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. What if everyone decided to become heroin addicts? Will the state pay for my life???

Kama

If you want to summarise my argument, please address its main points, specifically harm minimization.

Eh, sorry if this is repetitive but:

Paying the legal costs as outlined by extragon is likely less than the indirect costs of heroin addiction socially. More study needed for good evidence, but the post-war British soldiers who were addicted during the war is usually used as an example. There was a steady-declining population of heroin addicts, who had an assured legal supply, and were not rushing around trying to steal or addict others to pay for the next fix.

What if everyone became an addict? Pretty unlikely, first off. The point was that addiction increase rates when outside the illegal market structure (which incentivises producing new addicts) could see a reduction in addiction rates rather than their increase. Again, evidence needed, but its a fairly logical argument.

Mr' D is not working, but neither is he stealing tellys or jacking people with syringes. In neither scenario does he look likely to be working, but in one he cannot work, must get money, and hence is more likely to commit serious crime. In the other he does not to anywhere near the same extent.

This is the choice, A or B. Legalization or criminalization, pay one way (prescribe) or pay the other way (socially, and through the justice system). Compare the costs, come to a reasoned opinion. We have a serious problem, illegal hard drugs, and the current system, almost by its nature, cannot work, while it tries to penalise, it has created a large black market and both supply and demand remain.

I'm not saying legalzation is a bed of roses, and frankly I think the moral argument like you made 'free smack for junkies! Fuk them!' will shout down any reasoned proposals which might actually improve matters for addicts and the rest of society, but we should really try something else, just to compare policies...

Tha Gopher

Kama wrote: »

As do alcohol, paracetamol, and jogging; Jim Fixx died of a heart attack, and jogging is hell on your knee cartilage.

You hadnt a clue who he was before Bill Hicks, did you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

You can buy legal anti depressants which are marketed as such without prescription? News to me.

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

the war on drugs?

you know, the international war western liberal democracies are fighting against their own populations.

Holy dramatism Batman.

You believe John Law should allow the uncontrolled supply of heroin?

I do recant on one point I made before however, that legalisation in Ireland of cannabis would be madness because the Irish over do absoloutely everything. Biggest drinkers in the EU. In the top 3 for cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy use (although, from personal experience, I feel there are some flaws in that study, if our Eastern bloc friends consume pills and smoke like they do here we are at least tied with the Poles, Baltics and Slovaks).

However, having been to the dam recently, Ive realised that, yes, for the first month, the cafes would be jammed here. 7 nights a week likely. But, eventually, we would get used to it, the novelty would go. Hell, I was touring the coffeeshops 3 hours and realised this is pretty cool but I enjoy spending a summer afternoon necking cold beers than smoking constantly. Plus, we were too knackered to go out that night. I reckon that legalising would be no harm, as we would get used to it to the point that the people who smoked before would just largely call in for their carry outs, the people who didnt smoke much before would pretty much not bother going to the coffeeshops once the novelty wore off. I smoked with a few of the lads who, back home, would only smoke if it was passed around at a party, wouldnt bother buying.

Having said that, the government, in co operation with foreign governments, is winning its war on cannabis slowly but gradually. So they have no reason to legalise it.

Kama

Thanks for that succinct and informative precis of the discussion, Captain Information Content...I'll repond to your points, when you make them... :rolleyes: NinjaEdit ALurt!

But yeh, we tend to overdo things, probably because Teh Lord Gawd cursed us with such miserable weather, driving us to the warm bosom of substance abuse. But overdoing is gonna happen eitherways. Decriminalising soft would prob lead to an immediate reported jump in figures, but then be 'old hat' and decline.

Having said that, the government, in co operation with foreign governments, is winning its war on cannabis slowly but gradually. So they have no reason to legalise it.

Evidence? When is the war won, out of interest?

Tha Gopher

Kama wrote: »

Thanks for that succinct and informative precis of the discussion, Captain Information Content...I'll repond to your points, when you make them... :rolleyes:

Anti drug talks in schools should involve reviewing boards.ie drug threads.

The thought of turning into the type of drug using adult so common here who is so millitant they spend hours on teh interwebz posting long winded arguements against reason and common sense (not to admit an inability to concede they are wrong) would surely turn the kids away.

Kama wrote: »

Evidence? When is the war won, out of interest?

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?
If the Morrocans succeed with their aim to all but wipe it out within 4 years? Cannabis resin is more expensive and much harder to obtain than in the past.
When the product available is so crap it isnt worth buying? It has already partly happened with cocaine in Dublin. 2 years ago Im not sure I was ever at a party where it wasnt available. Fast forward to now and people couldnt care less. It is overpriced, the effects are crap, alot of people simply dont care for it anymore compared to a few years ago. The same will eventually happen with the mashed up herbs mixed with god knows how little cannabis that passes for weed in Ireland.

turgon

Well to be honest

Kama wrote: »

Paying the legal costs as outlined by extragon is likely less than the indirect costs of heroin addiction socially.

and

Kama wrote: »

Mr' D is not working

seem to be a contradiction. If Mr D is not working how does he pay for himself, firstly, and more importantly, the rest of his god-forsaken family unlucky enough to be thrown into his care? Or should the clean tax payers support his family too??

You fail to address my position that drug addicts should be cured, not endured.

Kama wrote: »

the moral argument like you made 'free smack for junkies! Fuk them!'

While you think this argument is moral, I see it as economic. If there ever comes a day when I have to start paying for addicts' heroin I will make a few petrol bombs, find a few addicts' houses (that is, if they have any) and throw them in. I will not pay for other people to live a life high off of opium.

Oh, and finally Kama, I Just rememberer a time when Opium was legal - in China in the 1800's. Wasnt exactly the happy productive society you seem to think legalizing heroin will produce.

Kama

You fail to address my position that drug addicts should be cured, not endured.

Nope, I'm addressing it; I'm arguing that this would take better place if they weren't in an illegal setting. Imprisoning people doesn't do much to help them quit, btw. You can make a pretty good argument that it increases addiction rates.

If by the Opium setting in China you mean the Opium Wars, when the British Empire deliberately pushed smack as a 'free trade' policy with the extra-added advantage of screwing over China, due to a trade deficit? Not exactly the same as keeping registered addicts on a maintenance dose...I'm arguing that you are paying anyway, whether you firebomb or not.

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?

Thats already here, mostly. Has been for cocaine in Ireland for a while. Yet we still have a 'drug problem'. Quality is atrocious, and demand remains. Perhaps you're right Gopher, but I'm not convinced. The profits from drug importation are so high, the revenues are so high, that there's always going to be a supply, its just a basic market logic.

Boggle

On the contrary I was just highlighting how ridiculous saying people should use their common sense in medical matters instead of just trusting those with so much experience in the field is.

Actully what I was doing was saying there was a balance to be struck and that no one should just blindly accept that what others say, particularly when experience leads you to question the fact. You decided to ignore this and instead cried fould that I would dare question conventional opinion and in particular those of our "fine" medical establishment. But then again, you equate trying to ride out a chest infection without antibiotics to using a chopsaw for an amputation.
In this instance, I seem to remember looking into why I couldn't shift my chest infection and coming across articles condemning the overprescription of anti-b's. They made sense at the time, I tried it, it worked, end of. What risk was there??

long winded arguements against reason and common sense

Typical of many militant prohibitionists. There are very good arguments both for and against prohibition of various substances so I would recommend you engage in some serious thought before resorting to petty little posts like this.

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?

Why buy something ou can grow yourself?? And by the way, hash might be a little harder to come by these days (mainly cos I won't get involved with scum) but grass, coke, etc certainly isn't. If I had to guess why I'd just say its because there's more money in those drugs...
Then again, if I was back in school, I'd find it much easier than now to find whatever I might want.

Kama

Here's a recent interview with Nader on this very subject:

"Nonviolent drug offences are being over prosecuted and corporate crime is being under prosecuted. The Justice Department must begin to reverse course, crank up the crackdown on corporate crime, and end the cruel and inhumane war on nonviolent drug possession.

"The criminal justice system is broken - so badly that one hardly knows where to begin describing the breakdown. Let's start with the war on drugs, since commentators across the political spectrum recognise its lunacy. We pour almost endless resources - roughly $50 billion every year -- into catching, trying, and incarcerating people who primarily harm themselves. This insane war on drugs damages communities and drains crucial resources from the police, courts, and prisons. These resources could be better used to combat serious street and corporate crime that directly violates the public's liberty, health, safety, trust, and financial well-being. the approach to drug addicts should be rehabilitation, not incarceration.

"The current drug policy has consumed tens of billions of dollars and wrecked countless lives. The costs of this policy include the increasing breakdown of families and neighbourhoods, endangerment of children, widespread violation of civil liberties, escalating rates of incarceration, political corruption, and the imposition of United States policy abroad. In practice, the drug war disproportionately targets people of colour and people who are poverty-stricken. Coercive measures have not reduced drug use, but they have clogged our criminal justice system with nonviolent offenders. It is time to explore alternative approaches and to end this costly war."

Key points here being the cost, the use of scarce resources on non-violent crime, the bias in the judicial system disproportionately prosecuting and incarcerating on a class-economic and racial basis, and the loss of civil liberties that a prohibitionist policy requires, which was a part of sxydubgrrl's argument. If justice is distributed on a partial basis, its not exactly just.

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

But then again, you equate trying to ride out a chest infection without antibiotics to using a chopsaw for an amputation.

Not really, drug addiction is a bit more serious than a chest infection.

Kama wrote: »

Nope, I'm addressing it; I'm arguing that this would take better place if they weren't in an illegal setting. Imprisoning people doesn't do much to help them quit, btw. You can make a pretty good argument that it increases addiction rates.

I dont grasp the illegal setting idea. Sure these rehab centers should wean people off. But giving people medicinal heroin at a constant rate indefinitely is a waste of money.

Kama wrote: »

If by the Opium setting in China you mean the Opium Wars, when the British Empire deliberately pushed smack as a 'free trade' policy with the extra-added advantage of screwing over China, due to a trade deficit? Not exactly the same as keeping registered addicts on a maintenance dose...I'm arguing that you are paying anyway, whether you firebomb or not.

I was referring to your argument that drugs should be legalized. In China 25% of the male population was using it on a regular basis because it was so freely available.

Kama

But giving people medicinal heroin at a constant rate indefinitely is a waste of money.

As is incarcerating them. The question we can't conclusively answer without more evidence, is in which scenario do addiction rates increase faster, in a legalised or criminalised regime. If it reduces addiction increase rates, would you agree that its not a waste, or is it just a waste by the very fact that you would be giving smack to junkies with taxpayers money?

The cheap point here, is if that legal prescription reduces drug-related crime, its money well-spent rather than wasted.

In the Chinese case you said, opium was massively imported by Britain to fill a balance of payments deficit, while criminalised by the Emperor. A 'free market', with strong induced demand, resulted. This relates closer to our current drug law, than it does to a maintenance dose scheme.


Now, don't get me wrong; I don't think there's much redeeming value to diamorphine use, bar as a painkiller for palliative care. But there is a heroin trade, and there's a lot of money in it. Complete elimination is A: unlikely and B: uneconomic. So its a question of how best to handle it.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

As is incarcerating them.

It isnt a waste of time: its a deterrent. The only reason I obey speed limits is because I am deterred by the possibility of a fine.

Kama wrote: »

The cheap point here, is if that legal prescription reduces drug-related crime, its money well-spent rather than wasted.

But you might have more addicts.

Kama

I'm a bit dubious on the deterrence value of illegality re heroin addiction, think the 'incentive' dwarfs the disincentive of illegality. If you have a physiological addiction, the deterrence from legality seems likely to be minor.

You might have more addicts

True, and you might have less; frankly, if either of us says we 'know' we're talking out our ass. We can have an educated guess, and disagree, but without evidence 'tis farts in the wind tbh. In the case of the second scenario, would you be pro-decriminalization? If I was convinced that illegality was a effective deterrent, I'd be more sympathetic to the status quo.