Fair play to Peter Hitchens

shantolog

The sooner we stop treating drug abuse as a crime, and start treating it like a health issue as it clearly is, the better off society will be in the long run.

But we can't have that conversation yet as we still have to ignore the big elephant in the room, Alcohol, and all the violence and broken homes that causes. I don't think Ireland is ready to rid itself of that particular addiction yet, so we heap attention on the illegal drugs as if somehow getting of junkies will solve our drug problems.

Wolf Club

Hitchens seems to be completely detached from society, living in his own upper middle class Tory bubble. Saying harsher sentencing for drug offences would deter users is a ridiculous argument, does every person caught with drugs need to be stigmatized and their lives ruined? It would cause further damage to people who's only crime is damaging their own bodies.

Robroy36

Wolf Club wrote: »

Hitchens seems to be completely detached from society, living in his own upper middle class Tory bubble.

That dope don't live in the reel worild. :rolleyes:

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

That dope don't live in the reel worild. :rolleyes:

Some point you're trying to get across there.....?

Robroy36

Wolf Club wrote: »

It would cause further damage to people who's only crime is damaging their own bodies.

Tell that to the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers.

Robroy36

Nodin wrote: »

Some point you're trying to get across there.....?

Nodin, I am highlighting his ignorant, petulant, inverse snobbery. Do you need the definitions of any of those words spelt out to you?

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

Nodin, I am highlighting his ignorant, petulant, inverse snobbery. Do you need the definitions of any of those words spelt out to you?

O, so that was meant to be an accent denoting 'ignorance'. Fascinating. Do please expand on this new theory of society. Is it a fact that a Dublin accent is linked to ignorance?

Wattle

Robroy36 wrote: »

Tell that to the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers.

The present system is only perpetuating that. Send a drug user to prison and he's surrounded by drugs. Give him a criminal record and he can't get a job. Give him no hope for the future and he thinks **** it might as well get out of my head. And on and on it goes. We need a different approach.

jank

Not that Peter Hitches won the argument but Perry lost the argument when he had to resort to smug childish name calling and put downs.

Waking-Dreams

Peter Hitchens isn’t the only person to reject the disease hypothesis of addiction. Gene Heyman makes a great case that current conventional wisdom about addiction, that it is a disease and a compulsion beyond conscious control, is dead wrong. His book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, argues that addiction is actually voluntary, influenced by preferences and goals, and can be understood as a quirk in the psychological principles governing all human decisions. (So it’s more of a mental health issue then.)

The trouble with labeling something like addiction as a disease is that it tends to remove much of the accountability from the addict and promotes the idea that they are somehow a victim at the mercy of their own corrupted neurology.

What this does for many addicts is that whenever they feel the unrelenting compulsion to engage in their addiction, they find absolution in the concept; that making that impulsive choice is because they have a disease and are powerless to counteract it. As you can imagine, this does not help them in taking full accountability for their weakness and assigns responsibility to something else instead.

While people with addictions may very well be victims in the conventional sense, it would seem more appropriate to label them as victims of their own desires, not of some disease in their body or mind. In the same way that Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrig’s Disease are all legitimate diseases and cannot be overcome by willpower and cognitive awareness, addicts are able to give up their addictions.

Many will argue passionately that such addicts who manage to give up their addictions are not proper addicts, or fall into a different class of compulsive user. Certainly, some people do become more addicted than others but this doesn’t mean that choice isn’t playing its part.

old hippy

Not sure if addiction is just something you can dismiss as choice. It's akin to a mental illness and one can't just decide not to be mentally ill anymore.

Wattle

I have to agree that some people hide behind the disease thing as a way to rationalise continued using and drinking. I've seen it in AA and in other places.

Wolf Club

Robroy36 wrote: »

Tell that to the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers.

I wasn't referring to dealers.

There a few weeks ago Tony Geoghegan, the CEO of Merchants Quay, argued on Vincent Browne that charging users as criminals is completely counter productive and just pushes them further into crime. After all, what employer is going to employ someone with a criminal record? So what Hithchens and you are arguing actually has the opposite effect of what is intended. Treating these people as criminals has a terrible effect on "the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers".

Waking-Dreams

old hippy wrote: »

Not sure if addiction is just something you can dismiss as choice. It's akin to a mental illness and one can't just decide not to be mentally ill anymore.

It’s a very bad choice and people do make very bad decisions that can impact negatively on their lives. Decisions they are not proud of. So, perhaps that’s why there is absolution in the disease model for people who want to overcome their addictions.

“You’re not yourself, you have a disease. All those people you hurt, whom you stole from, whom you lied to, all so you could just feed your habit – it wasn’t really you, you have a disease”.

I can see how this can be a softer message for someone contemplating giving it up instead of coming down hard with the message that “you did this to yourself, you chose to hurt all those people for your own selfish desires, it was entirely your choice”.

We can all admit that humans are not 100% rational beings and so, we must accept that people make poor choices as they go through life.

I don’t think criminalising addicts is helpful though, unless they have really gone down the path of no return and are a danger to society. You have to draw the line somewhere. Addicts can’t be given a free pass to do what they like simply because they’re addicts.

Mammanabammana

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

The trouble with labeling something like addiction as a disease is that it tends to remove much of the accountability from the addict and promotes the idea that they are somehow a victim at the mercy of their own corrupted neurology.

What this does for many addicts is that whenever they feel the unrelenting compulsion to engage in their addiction, they find absolution in the concept; that making that impulsive choice is because they have a disease and are powerless to counteract it. As you can imagine, this does not help them in taking full accountability for their weakness and assigns responsibility to something else instead.

This is the part that a lot of people seem to be misinformed on. An active addict is in fact absolutely at the mercy of their own corrupted neurology (to use your own phrase). And yes they tell themselves "Oh it's a disease, I can't help it"...and while I'm not going to go into the rights or wrongs of the use of the word 'disease' as it relates to addicition, the fact remains that addiction will drive a person to behaviours that they quite simply would not do while sober. So it's simple logic to say that if somebody would not do something while sober but then does so while under the influence of a mind altering substance, they don't have the same level of accountability.

However (and this is my point), that is NOT the same as saying that they don't have the same level of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Accountability and responsibility are two different things, not two different ways of saying the same thing. In the head of the active addict they're the same. But in recovery, as soon as you get to a point where you're ready and can address your past behaviours without the danger of relapse or being swamped with guilt, you need to face the responsibilities for those actions and do whatever is possible to right the wrongs. It's not dressed up as an easy thing to do, and there's a support system in place but it's an important part of recovery. You don't just wander on and ignore the damage that's been done. Diminished accountability is acceptable but diminished responsibility is not.

Whether you agree that addiction is a disease or not (and the World Health Organisation classified it as such a long time ago), doing ANYthing under the influence of a mind altering substance - and that includes alcohol - had consequences. Whether you're a social drinker who texts the ex at 4am and then cringes the next morning or a chronic alcoholic/drug addict/other addict causing complete mayhem, you have to take the responsibility for your actions. No matter how unaccountable you might claim to be ("It was the drink talking").

joseph brand

Typical conservative view:

"Oh you need help?" "Have some jail."

Problem sorted.


Disclaimer: Problem may not be sorted.

joseph brand

old hippy wrote: »

Not sure if addiction is just something you can dismiss as choice. It's akin to a mental illness and one can't just decide not to be mentally ill anymore.

"Oh he's depressed?" "Why doesn't he just cop on and get on with his life?" "Bloody spongers." Every conservative ever.

joseph brand

Wolf Club wrote: »

I wasn't referring to dealers.

There a few weeks ago Tony Geoghegan, the CEO of Merchants Quay, argued on Vincent Browne that charging users as criminals is completely counter productive and just pushes them further into crime. After all, what employer is going to employ someone with a criminal record? So what Hithchens and you are arguing actually has the opposite effect of what is intended. Treating these people as criminals has a terrible effect on "the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers".

They hate criminals, and yet want to make more of them. Seems legit.

stpaddy99

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth


also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

that's utter nonsense
hitchins was right in many ways to tell perry and the like they need to take responsibility over their own actions

Wolf Club

stpaddy99 wrote: »

that's utter nonsense
hitchins was right in many ways to tell perry and the like they need to take responsibility over their own actions

The debate wasn't supposed to be about telling "perry and the like they need to take responsibility over their own actions", yet that was the mantra Hitchens kept bringing the conversation back to. It was entertaining TV but a pointless debate, just 2 people at polar opposite ends of the spectrum having a go at each other and Hitchens coming out the worse. I wouldn't say it'll be long before we see him again, he'll become the Katie Hopkins for social issues.

Corkfeen

stpaddy99 wrote: »

that's utter nonsense
hitchins was right in many ways to tell perry and the like they need to take responsibility over their own actions

A large proportion of addicts don't even know that they're addicts tbh. By lobbing a person in a prison cell, you're pushing a person into criminality. Drug use is still rife in prisons. You're potentially making a person into a violent criminal when they weren't a criminal in the first place. It makes far greater sense to offer them the assistance that they're in need of instead of ostracising them from society.

mikom

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

I can see why the bead rattlers would like Peter Hitchens.

And by promising that there will always be an escape from pregnancy, the state invites everyone who has the physical equipment to play the sex game as casually as possible. The more precautions the authorities provide, the more unwanted pregnancies there are.


Here’s a free condom. If you won’t use that, then here’s a pill for your girl. If she won’t use that, here’s another pill, originally developed to protect pedigree bitches from becoming pregnant by mongrels. Just to show how matey and relaxed they are, they’ll call it the ‘morning-after pill’ and you can get it at school by sending a text message.


Can’t be bothered with all that palaver?
Well, in that case they’re happy to spend taxpayers’ money ripping any unborn babies from your womb, in a non-judgmental way. And they’ll do that again and again and again for the same person, rather than utter a whisper of disapproval. In fact, they’ll turn with savage rage on anyone who does dare to disapprove.


They back all this up with sex education that licenses teachers to groom children for under-age sex, and tells them everything is normal and nothing is wrong. And they’ll allow TV advertisements for abortion and contraception.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/03/condoms-pillsbut-how-about-restraint.html

But is this always rape, for instance where the two are well-known to each other and have been in a sustained sexual relationship for some time?


'rapes' which are in fact not rapes at all - many of which involve men and women who have been engaged in a sexual relationship for some time, or men and women who are, to put it mildly, not specially chaste in their personal lives.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/11/rape-is-a-very-.html

You'll note that those are extracts from Peter Hitchens Daily mail blog.

Beware of "hitching" your horse to the wrong cart folks, as this lad would bring back the Magdalene laundries if he could.

stpaddy99

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Peter Hitchens is a gob****e. He's advocating the further criminalization of drug users, as if that's working so well as it is. :rolleyes: His arrogance and complete lack of understanding is astounding.

A big issue surrounding drug and alcohol problems is mental health. Throwing more people in jail is short-sighted, costly and ineffective, because it's not getting to the root of the problem. Telling people to simply have more willpower or just "get over it" is ludicrous, and frankly offensive.

Baroness Meacher spoke the most sense out of the lot of them. I think she could have taken Hitchens down single-handedly.

the baroness was pig ignorant she just talked over hitchens all the time
overall it was a poor debate and got nowhere
obviously thgere has to be both a degree of criminalization but also a degree of rehabilitation .....why cant these so called experts behave better
hitchens was right to tell perry there is a degree of personal repsoniblity as perrys point that he was powerless to stop himself drinking after 1 beer...pathetic
but hitchens was right to criminalize drug taking at the start....to prevent more usage in the first place...of course once theyre hooked then yes a degree of rehabilitation must come into play....its all a matter of common sense collaboration and communication

stpaddy99

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Peter Hitchens isn’t the only person to reject the disease hypothesis of addiction. Gene Heyman makes a great case that current conventional wisdom about addiction, that it is a disease and a compulsion beyond conscious control, is dead wrong. His book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, argues that addiction is actually voluntary, influenced by preferences and goals, and can be understood as a quirk in the psychological principles governing all human decisions. (So it’s more of a mental health issue then.)

The trouble with labeling something like addiction as a disease is that it tends to remove much of the accountability from the addict and promotes the idea that they are somehow a victim at the mercy of their own corrupted neurology.

What this does for many addicts is that whenever they feel the unrelenting compulsion to engage in their addiction, they find absolution in the concept; that making that impulsive choice is because they have a disease and are powerless to counteract it. As you can imagine, this does not help them in taking full accountability for their weakness and assigns responsibility to something else instead.

While people with addictions may very well be victims in the conventional sense, it would seem more appropriate to label them as victims of their own desires, not of some disease in their body or mind. In the same way that Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrig’s Disease are all legitimate diseases and cannot be overcome by willpower and cognitive awareness, addicts are able to give up their addictions.

Many will argue passionately that such addicts who manage to give up their addictions are not proper addicts, or fall into a different class of compulsive user. Certainly, some people do become more addicted than others but this doesn’t mean that choice isn’t playing its part.

I reject it too..its nonsense but a highly lucrative nonsense to tell people they are powerless to control their own impulses and desires...its rubbish
the people I know who take drugs who smoke heavy and drink heavy are all hyperactive often bored and having some issues of attention and fail to get enough pleasure from the simpler things in life. maybe they should actually be taught how to enjoy the simpler things and inspired to live cleaner lives....clearly the overly liberal efforts have failed spectacularly.

stpaddy99

I am pie wrote: »

Who is more likely to be right here, some conservative ideologue shooting from the hip with a clumsy point to prove around personal freedom or qualified medical professionals trained in addiction management and recovery?

trained in total brainwash drivel that is utterly wrong and hopelessly flawed in the first place...to tell tens of millions of people theyre powerless to control their addictions is not just stupid its phenomenally dangerous , irresponsible and counter productive....meanwhile what about all the tens of thousands of victims of crimes by people under the influence of drugs and booze? aren't they worthy of being protected by getting these addicts and drug pushers off the streets

Temptamperu

Dravokivich wrote: »

Addiction is not an illness or a disability. There may be some sort of stumbling block that someone can't get through and they fall back into it. But their issue is they need support, not excuses for their inabilities.

Really? and where did you go to medical school? 10% of people are addicts before they pick up drugs or drink. Without their fix the go through some horrific bodily pain and the shock can kill you.
It might not be a disease but its a medical problem and not a police matter.

stpaddy99

Corkfeen wrote: »

A large proportion of addicts don't even know that they're addicts tbh. By lobbing a person in a prison cell, you're pushing a person into criminality. Drug use is still rife in prisons. You're potentially making a person into a violent criminal when they weren't a criminal in the first place. It makes far greater sense to offer them the assistance that they're in need of instead of ostracising them from society.

lobbing? Ive already stated there needs to be a degree of rehabilitation in the system...however hitchens is right to criminalize drugs in thr first place as a way to stop people taking them at the start....obviously drug pushers are scum and should be locked away for decades ....you also must protect the tens of thousands of innocent people who fall victim to these junkies when theyre under the influence of drugs and booze

kunst nugget

stpaddy99 wrote: »

clearly the overly liberal efforts have failed spectacularly.

Because there was no addiction or crime in Catholic Ireland?

stpaddy99

Temptamperu wrote: »

Really? and where did you go to medical school? 10% of people are addicts before they pick up drugs or drink. Without their fix the go through some horrific bodily pain and the shock can kill you.
It might not be a disease but its a medical problem and not a police matter.

Is it a police matter as its illegal and even moreso when they commit crimes under the influence fo booze and drugs

mikom

stpaddy99 wrote: »

meanwhile what about all the tens of thousands of victims of crimes by people under the influence of drugs and booze? aren't they worthy of being protected by getting these addicts and drug pushers off the streets

stpaddy99 wrote: »

hitchens is right to criminalize drugs in thr first place as a way to stop people taking them at the start....obviously drug pushers are scum and should be locked away for decades ....you also must protect the tens of thousands of innocent people who fall victim to these junkies when theyre under the influence of drugs and booze

So you are advocating the wholesale closing of pubs and off licences?

stpaddy99

kunst nugget wrote: »

Because there was no addiction or crime in Catholic Ireland?

who said that? no one...sarcasm is the lowest form of wit
the crime rates and drug rates have grown massively since weve taken this more liberal route...the problem is our system is incomplete shambles and too many so called do gooders are rewarded for the failures

Waking-Dreams

To return to the disease model hypothesis; do smokers also have a disease then? Quite strange that this disease seems to present during adolescence. And just because nicotine is not a mind-altering substance, bear in mind that it has a physical effect on the human body as smokers will often talk about intense cravings and the de-stressing nature of having that lovely smoke.

Obviously, I know that people don’t become homeless or engage in crime because of a smoking addiction but if people are prepared to argue that addiction is a disease why does this not apply to all addictive and compulsive behaviours? Or maybe it does.

Even ‘shopaholics’ who get a serious dopamine surge from buying things on credit they clearly can’t afford (putting themselves in massive debt) must be classed as having a disease too then, right?

Yet, in the latter case, I’d imagine people might view them as simply not making very good financial choices.

Corkfeen

stpaddy99 wrote: »

lobbing? Ive already stated there needs to be a degree of rehabilitation in the system...however hitchens is right to criminalize drugs in thr first place as a way to stop people taking them at the start....obviously drug pushers are scum and should be locked away for decades ....you also must protect the tens of thousands of innocent people who fall victim to these junkies when theyre under the influence of drugs and booze

I'll happily jail violent drug users but Hitchens is under the impression that jailing addicts in general will solve the problem. It doesn't. You don't win the war on drugs by jailing the users. Let's be realistic, prohibition didn't work and criminalising drugs and the users is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. Education and providing the individuals who suffer from addiction with proper treatment is far more worthwhile.

Drug courts at least serve the purpose of trying to assist the user rather than making them a criminal in the eyes of the law. They have a low rate of recidivism in terms of arrests. Are cheaper than incarcerating an addict and and you're far more likely to have a rehabilitated addict with no criminal record. This is far more beneficial for the masses too. Bit liberal for yourself though.

stpaddy99 wrote: »

who said that? no one...sarcasm is the lowest form of wit
the crime rates and drug rates have grown massively since weve taken this more liberal route...the problem is our system is incomplete shambles and too many so called do gooders are rewarded for the failures

The liberal route does tend to work,the lowest recidivism rates for prisons is in the more liberal countries. Eg: Norway

Waking-Dreams

And then in contrast you have the USA, with one of the highest rates of incarceration yet they clearly have lost the ‘war on drugs’.

stpaddy99

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll happily jail violent drug users but Hitchens is under the impression that jailing addicts in general will solve the problem. It doesn't. You don't win the war on drugs by jailing the users. Let's be realistic, prohibition didn't work and criminalising drugs and the users is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. Education and providing the individuals who suffer from addiction with proper treatment is far more worthwhile.

Drug courts at least serve the purpose of trying to assist the user rather than making them a criminal in the eyes of the law. They have a low rate of recidivism in terms of arrests. Are cheaper than incarcerating an addict and and you're far more likely to have a rehabilitated addict with no criminal record. This is far more beneficial for the masses too. Bit liberal for yourself though.




The liberal route does tend to work,the lowest recidivism rates for prisons is in the more liberal countries. Eg: Norway

no it doesn't the statistics show the over liberal ends up with more criminals more repeat criminals and more drugs abuse. I agree to a point about rehabilitation but the safety of the public is number one priority. also theres a limit how much money can be spent on this as there are millions of more worthy people who need help who have not acted so irresponsibly and self inflicting damage. the disabled seem to have gone backwards in the recession fewer jobs, far less help , endless cutbacks.....still to this day the majority of buildings have poor or no disabled access....we here of gay people who cant get married in churches, those in wheelchairs cant even get into churches yet its never mentioned. these people should be priorotised ahead of drug takers imo

stpaddy99

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

And then in contrast you have the USA, with one of the highest rates of incarceration yet they clearly have lost the ‘war on drugs’.

there is more crime per hesad here than in the usa and more drug related crime too

Nodin

stpaddy99 wrote: »

no it doesn't the statistics show the over liberal ends up with more criminals more repeat criminals and more drugs abuse. I agree to a point about rehabilitation but the safety of the public is number one priority. also theres a limit how much money can be spent on this as there are millions of more worthy people who need help who have not acted so irresponsibly and self inflicting damage. the disabled seem to have gone backwards in the recession fewer jobs, far less help , endless cutbacks.....still to this day the majority of buildings have poor or no disabled access....we here of gay people who cant get married in churches, those in wheelchairs cant even get into churches yet its never mentioned. these people should be priorotised ahead of drug takers imo

You've a source for that?

mikom

stpaddy99 wrote: »

there is more crime per hesad here than in the usa and more drug related crime too

More opinion.

What you've stated is Incorrect.
Show me your stats.

kunst nugget

stpaddy99 wrote: »

there is more crime per hesad here than in the usa and more drug related crime too

Eh, no there isn't…

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Ireland/United-States/Crime

Corkfeen

Dear Jesus, addicts aren't worthy of help when contrasted to other groups ?

mikom

stpaddy99 wrote: »

we here of gay people who cant get married in churches, those in wheelchairs cant even get into churches yet its never mentioned.

Get ta fuck.

Full of backwards opinion with nothing to back it up.

Mammanabammana

stpaddy99 wrote: »

we here of gay people who cant get married in churches, those in wheelchairs cant even get into churches yet its never mentioned. these people should be priorotised ahead of drug takers imo

I was preparing a serious reply to some of your points until I read this. Now I'm glad I didn't bother. Obvious troll is obvious.

Corkfeen

Gay marriage is a liberal issue anyway, no? Nobody is calling for the church portion of it though...

Reekwind

stpaddy99 wrote: »

there is more crime per hesad here than in the usa and more drug related crime too

If there was any justice in the world, you would have just voided all rights to post here forever. Or on any internet forum for that matter

opr

It's almost impossible to believe that he and Christopher Hitchens are brothers.

He had the same debate with Russel Brand last month on Newsnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqVohFEAfo

Opr

stpaddy99

mikom wrote: »

More opinion.

What you've stated is Incorrect.
Show me your stats.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/uk-violent-crime-rate-eight-times-higher-than-the-us/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

A Catastrophe”
The Magical Powers Of The NRA →

UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US

Posted on September 11, 2013 by stevengoddard
According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011. FBI — Violent Crime
According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf
There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK – 314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.



http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGEQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Flibertarianhome.co.uk%2F2012%2F12%2Fuk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states%2F&ei=6Q6yUteRE8mEhQfHqoHYDg&usg=AFQjCNGr9Yf0oE9g6_IxiUeBtQltxon_uw

stpaddy99

Mammanabammana wrote: »

I was preparing a serious reply to some of your points until I read this. Now I'm glad I didn't bother. Obvious troll is obvious.

Im not a troll Im just giving you original thought which you will of course not get on the bbc anymore

stpaddy99

Corkfeen wrote: »

Dear Jesus, addicts aren't worthy of help when contrasted to other groups ?

wrong I didn't say that I said theres a limit of money and that other health problems always need to be prioritised.

Nodin

stpaddy99 wrote: »

wrong I didn't say that I said theres a limit of money and that other health problems always need to be prioritised.

"no it doesn't the statistics show the over liberal ends up with more criminals more repeat criminals and more drugs abuse"

You've a source for the above?

Corkfeen

stpaddy99 wrote: »

wrong I didn't say that I said theres a limit of money and that other health problems always need to be prioritised.

Except, drug courts tend to work out cheaper than paying the daily cost of holding a person prisoner. Imprisoning people is not a cheap solution to be honest. Drug courts also have far greater success rate than putting a person in prison. Your method for solving a problem is brute force and it is proven,not to work.