Man tries to steal and cycle bike away - while it's still locked to the railings

corner of hells

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bull **** of the highest order.

At least elaborate a little bit.
Homelessness nowadays is a by product of our society and there's a correlation between addiction, criminality, mental ill health with homelessness.

HS3

Awww. ..I hate seeing things like this. Whoever chose to do whatever. ...seeing someone in that kind of state isn't nice.

I remember being in Temple Bar years ago and I was fairly well oiled. But I saw this bloke
..locked out of his head who couldn't walk straight...he got frustrated with himself and tried to run and landed flat on his face. I often wonder about the guy. Did he wake up the next morning wondering wtf happened to his face! It has stuck with me!

longshot911

longshot911 wrote: »

Drugs should be legalised.

I absolutely agree our drugs policy is failing. I believe in the need for injecting centres, and a focus on prevention instead of punishment of drug use ex post facto.

Decriminalisation is a possible solution, but not legalisation. Methadone is legal and reasonably easy to access, even for young teenagers, and yet we have an illicit street market in methadone; some people sell it to access heroin, which is more potent, and those who are not able to attend clinic or miss their appointments, or are not registered with drug treatment services, will buy methadone illegally.

This raises two obvious problems with legalising drugs:

Firstly, the inevitable desire for more potent drugs, since anything supplied by government will necessarily be quality-controlled and regulated within limited potencies
Secondly, the inevitable desire for access to hard drugs by those who are not registered with any agency, or who are unable to meet the requirements of a clinical programme.

Both of these issues will ensure that there will always be an illicit trade in opiates and other drugs that are currently illegal without a prescription.

The only way to get over these problems is a free-for-all where the State is competing with criminal gangs to supply ever-more potent and innovative drugs, with the Minister for Health Simon Harris assuming some Pablo Escobar kind of identity. I don't think anybody wants to see that.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Sorry to go a bit off-topic, but are those two compelling arguments to repeal the 8th? If abortion was easily available and free/affordable to those who couldn't otherwise pay, would it reduce the problem dramatically in a generation?

Maybe, yes. I think parents with addiction issues should be counselled regarding the effects of their addiction on any children, and at least given the option of a termination.

Foxhound38 wrote: »

At what point does it stop being society's fault and start being the responsibility of the person engaging in criminality to put toxic waste up their arm?

I don't know about anybody else, but I am focusing on minors, i.e. the study I pointed to earlier which gave the median age of first heroin use at 16, and the midspread between the ages of 14 and 18. When adults have sexual relations with individuals in most of that age cohort, society names this 'statutory rape', because we recognize that this cohort tends to be too developmentally immature to consent to sexual intercourse.

Surely the selling of drugs to life-changing, incredibly addictive drugs to this cohort is no less damaging (and probably far more damaging) than non-aggravated sexual intercourse.

I find it bizarre how you seem to be totally dismissive of the ages at which people tend to become heroin users, as though it isn't relevant.

It's sad that so many people look at that clip and feel no sadness at all for the shell of a human being in it, his life destroyed.

Drug addiction is never as simple as the cop yourself on crowd want to believe. I don't know how anyone can laugh at the state of the poor guy. People are victims of crime by drug abusers, but the first victims are the addicts themselves.

Dr Crayfish

They're victims caught in a trap. It's funny how most heroin addicts aren't from Foxrock or Dalkey, or had a fantastic family life growing up. Most of us here wont know how it feels when your life is that bad heroin is the only thing worth living for. I have known addicts and they don't want to be the way they are.
Having read this thread and the multiculturalism thread over the last couple of days, I really can't see anything changing in my lifetime. The majority on this site seem to be conservative Daily Heil type contributors.

4ensic15

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

They're victims caught in a trap. It's funny how most heroin addicts aren't from Foxrock or Dalkey, or had a fantastic family life growing up. Most of us here wont know how it feels when your life is that bad heroin is the only thing worth living for. I have known addicts and they don't want to be the way they are.
Having read this thread and the multiculturalism thread over the last couple of days, I really can't see anything changing in my lifetime. The majority on this site seem to be conservative Daily Heil type contributors.

I regard them as vermin. They have no place in a civilised society.

Wanderer78

4ensic15 wrote: »

I regard them as vermin. They have no place in a civilised society.

maybe we should just put all those suffering with mental health issues, down, would save us a fortune!

4ensic15

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe we should just put all those suffering with mental health issues, down, would save us a fortune!

The vast majority of people with mental health issues do not wander around the streets like zombies robbing and engaging in destruction.

Wanderer78

4ensic15 wrote: »

The vast majority of people with mental health issues do not wander around the streets like zombies robbing and engaging in destruction.

completely agree, so what rules should we have for exterminating the mentally ill?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

I regard them as vermin. They have no place in a civilised society.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The vast majority of people with mental health issues do not wander around the streets like zombies robbing and engaging in destruction.

Yes, lets give the District Court the power to apply the death penalty for petty crime.

Where are all these ludicrous opinions in 'real life'? They seem to be given expression only ever under the cloak of anonymity.

4ensic15

Wanderer78 wrote: »

completely agree, so what rules should we have for exterminating the mentally ill?

You are the one who suggested exterminating them!

corner of hells

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are the one who suggested exterminating them!

I think he might be playing the sarcasm card.

Wanderer78

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are the one who suggested exterminating them!

apologies, im getting confused, you described them as vermin, and we generally exterminate them, what do you propose to do with these 'vermin'?

4ensic15

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies, im getting confused, you described them as vermin, and we generally exterminate them, what do you propose to do with these 'vermin'?

I take a more civilised attitude than you do anyway.

Wanderer78

4ensic15 wrote: »

I take a more civilised attitude than you do anyway.

apologies, i misunderstood your post. im personally an advocator for legalisation of all drugs, tax them, used this revenue to boost our health service, in particular our mental health services to try prevent drug addiction in the first place and to have facilities and resources required to deal with drug addiction adequately.

4ensic15

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies, i misunderstood your post. im personally an advocator for legalisation of all drugs, tax them, used this revenue to boost our health service, in particular our mental health services to try prevent drug addiction in the first place and to have facilities and resources required to deal with drug addiction adequately.

Why are you suggesting killing people then?

Wanderer78

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why are you suggesting killing people then?

ive moved on. apology above. thank you

Eamondomc

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies, i misunderstood your post. im personally an advocator for legalisation of all drugs, tax them, used this revenue to boost our health service, in particular our mental health services to try prevent drug addiction in the first place and to have facilities and resources required to deal with drug addiction adequately.

Do you think that would stop the abuse of them, or the illegal distribution of them?

ChikiChiki

Dublins chronic and highly visible drug problem embarrassing at this stage. Makes me ashamed as I walk through the city every day.

In very few places is it as in your face as Dublin.

*Eagerly awaiting apologists who says it happens in all cities.

Wanderer78

Eamondomc wrote: »

Do you think that would stop the abuse of them, or the illegal distribution of them?

impossible to say if it would do either of those but im convinced the way it is now, is simply not working. it may reduce the amount of drug related crimes and drug related crime gangs. i think its a more pro-active way of dealing with illegal drug problems. since this hasnt been done yet, we have no real data to go by even though portugal's approach will be interesting to watch over the coming years. i think it would give us a better idea of the amount of drug use in the country as we re only guesstimating at the moment. id rather the illegal drug trade run by some governmental body that some highly volatile criminal gangs. i suspect we ll never eradicate drug use but id rather it be controlled. its a very complicated social problem which seems to be getting worse in my eyes, as to are our mental health issues.

Wanderer78

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Dublins chronic and highly visible drug problem embarrassing at this stage. Makes me ashamed as I walk through the city every day.

In very few places is it as in your face as Dublin.

*Eagerly awaiting apologists who says it happens in all cities.

tis happening in my city to but not on the scale of dublin. very worrying to watch though

Nekarsulm

Never mind about the "role of Society" in creating thieving drug addicts, if it was my bike and I returned to find him trying to steal it, a swift kick in the nuts would concentrate his little mind.
It's incredible how the victims of crime are somehow to blame for the unfortunate life choices of others.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

I wonder how many people addicted to heroin and other opiates started with legally prescribed or hospital-administered narcotics for pain. My brother in the US had to go on methadone treatment after his doctor badly managed his long-term treatment and his chemist never questioned why he had been taking narcotics for so long. He was on the methadone until he died.

Not many in the EU. Opiates are overused in the US. However, Ireland and the UK have an issue with addiction to OTC codeine.

Autonomous Cowherd

I feel sorry for the person who gets their bike stolen. It's a total pain in the ass to turn up and find your bleeding bike gone. Means you have to fork out a couple of hundred euros to get another one, and feel annoyed for a few days. And I am sincere in saying that is regrettable for anyone.

I feel sorry for the drugged up lad trying to wade through brain treacle to steal the bike, totally munged and clueless. It must be a total pain in the ass to be dragged up in an environment where you might have to watch your parents shoot up, and not get a great breakfast, or dinner or tea, and not perform well at school, because no one gives too much of a damn about how your maths and reading are going. Means that by the time you are leaving the relative innocence of a childhood behind then sex and drugs are about the only thing that offer the potential of momentary bliss and relief from the repetitive goddamn monotony of grinding boredom and poverty and lack of vision, and feeling annoyed for years on end. And I am sincere in saying that is regrettable for anyone.

Chuchote

How Portugal solved its drug problem:

OhHiMark

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Never mind about the "role of Society" in creating thieving drug addicts, if it was my bike and I returned to find him trying to steal it, a swift kick in the nuts would concentrate his little mind.
It's incredible how the victims of crime are somehow to blame for the unfortunate life choices of others.

Where did anyone say the victims are to blame? The point people are making is that you can either want to fix the problem, or you can want to continue being able to look down your nose at the "vermin". Saying they should be exterminated (I know you didn't say this but someone did) will never fix the problem. But it sure makes you feel good doesn't it?

Nekarsulm

The victims of crime are usually people who have something worth stealing. Therefore they make up contributing members of society.
And Society is always blamed for criminals actions.

I never referred to thieves and addicts as "vermin", and I'll thank you to withdraw that accusation.

RDM_83 again

Chuchote wrote: »

How Portugal solved its drug problem:

Portugal always gets thrown out as an example of the magic solution but its worth keeping a few things in mind.

-Most importantly we aren't the USA, we aren't locking people up over casual amounts of recreational drugs anyway

-Portugal basically had no drugs strategy at all when they took the road they did, its like if you put a fat person on any sort of diet, doing anything is going to have results it doesn;t tell you the relative effectiveness apart from that it does work

- Its increased most types of drug use (including things like Heroin which are always at least slightly problamatic)

Its been effective at a number of things, reducing drugs deaths and HIV infections, but for the general population I am not sure these things are actually that important. What probably would be of benefit if funneling resources that were used on small scale drugs stuff was used for anti- social behavior.
To quote one of the experts involved in setting up the system.

"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."

Additionally if we are going to talk about another place with decriminalization, Switzerland, it was done in a way that I'm sure would annoy the more "kind hearted" posters, there was both carrot and stick, addicts were forcibly deported from major cities to their home areas, they literally cleared out and banned them from the city centers.

Wanderer78

RDM_83 again wrote:

Additionally if we are going to talk about another place with decriminalization, Switzerland, it was done in a way that I'm sure would annoy the more "kind hearted" posters, there was both carrot and stick, addicts were forcibly deported from major cities to their home areas, they literally cleared out and banned them from the city centers.

Another out of sight, out of mind approach as far as I can see!

OhHiMark

Nekarsulm wrote: »

The victims of crime are usually people who have something worth stealing. Therefore they make up contributing members of society.
And Society is always blamed for criminals actions.

I never referred to thieves and addicts as "vermin", and I'll thank you to withdraw that accusation.

The vermin quote was from other people. I'm making a general point. I wasn't accusing you of saying that.

To my other point, we've gone past the point of blame if we want to fix it. Blaming and shaming will not work. We have 40 years of history that shows that. Do we want to fix it or do we want to keep pointing the finger?

People will say that we're too easy on criminals. Well the US is one of the hardest countries in the world on drug crime (in terms of prison time) and nothing has changed there. Longer sentences are not a deterrent.

Chuchote

The Irish should up their game

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21706520-green-light-thieves-south-africas-biggest-city-literally-bad-robots

But the biggest problem is robot [traffic light] robbers. Like power lines and manhole covers, traffic lights attract thieves who sell the metal for scrap. Some will cut down the entire pole to get a bit of copper wire. In one theft, caught on video, a man hacks away at a robot’s cables with a pickaxe while two others stand guard, scrambling into the bushes whenever a car goes by. Damage to robots has cost the city 12.7m rand ($900,000) in the past three years, says the JRA.

Birneybau

Chuchote wrote: »

The Irish should up their game

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21706520-green-light-thieves-south-africas-biggest-city-literally-bad-robots

Now, there's a sh!thole.

Foxhound38

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Never mind about the "role of Society" in creating thieving drug addicts, if it was my bike and I returned to find him trying to steal it, a swift kick in the nuts would concentrate his little mind.
It's incredible how the victims of crime are somehow to blame for the unfortunate life choices of others.

No doubt you would face a reprimand from some for failing to offer him a nice hug and a warm cup of tea instead in that situation :rolleyes:

ScumLord

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Decriminalisation is a possible solution, but not legalisation.

I see decriminalisation as an agnostic fence sitting position. While it's great for end users and does make things better. It's just sort of backing off of the pressure on the black market, but still allowing it to continue. Legalisation would be like opening a large chain store in a small town for the first time, it would obliterate the market that's there.

The obvious problem with full on legalisation is the hard drugs that are very addictive. It's hard to allow those drugs into a free market because they can be so easily abused, not just by the addicts but the people selling the drug, and probably even the people caring for the addicts. As in, it would be easy to basically do very little in the way of caring for addicts because they won't complain.

But I think the hard drugs especially need some sort of state control.

This raises two obvious problems with legalising drugs:

Firstly, the inevitable desire for more potent drugs, since anything supplied by government will necessarily be quality-controlled and regulated within limited potencies
Secondly, the inevitable desire for access to hard drugs by those who are not registered with any agency, or who are unable to meet the requirements of a clinical programme.

If the hard drugs were legalised, there is the danger that people will try heroin offered by the state, become addicted, run into a limit on how much they're allowed to buy for health reasons and then turn to a black market. That's possible. The difference would be that if drug gangs can't find enough of a market for their drugs their business will simply collapse, they'll lose their ability to buy in bulk and get the discounts they need to turn a profit. So the black market in drugs simply won't have the same ability to supply the drugs, it would also make the price skyrocket, putting it out of the reach of even the most voracious thief.

There's also the difference in quality, medical grade heroin will be a very different animal to what's available on the street.

I think there should certainly be an attempt to snatch the heroin market away from criminal gangs. If the government could replace the black market as the source of the drug, they could implement all kinds of ways of weaning people off, controlling their addiction, but most of all they'd reduce the ability of drug gangs to buy their product and elist new addicts to abuse.

You may not even need to legalise the drug to do that. Simply not convicting heroin users under state care for a temporary period while they decimate the heroin market would be enough.

Other drugs like cannabis, ecstasy, and the psychedelics should all be legalised.

They should make every effort to create social settings where the drugs can be used to avoid isolation of users. Social use of drugs seems to be the best way to prevent problems.

The only way to get over these problems is a free-for-all where the State is competing with criminal gangs to supply ever-more potent and innovative drugs, with the Minister for Health Simon Harris assuming some Pablo Escobar kind of identity. I don't think anybody wants to see that.

That doesn't need to happen at all. Just about every designer drug ever made was made to emulate the illegal drugs that are hard to get. The illegal drugs are pretty much apex drugs, everything else is just a pale imitation. If the state can provide clean, good quality drugs, which they could at an industrial scale, criminal organisation would have no answer. They're not willing to spend that kind of money. A legitimate business can survive on a much smaller profit margins than criminal gangs can.

I don't know about anybody else, but I am focusing on minors, i.e. the study I pointed to earlier which gave the median age of first heroin use at 16,

That's a society problem though, they need something else to do, they need to develop a new culture for themselves. But if they're in the position where heroin seems like the only option they have left I think it would be better that they went to an official centre where some sort of counseling can be offered at the same time. That may drive some away, but it may save others.

Chuchote

ScumLord wrote: »

If the hard drugs were legalised, there is the danger that

No need to theorise; Portugal decriminalised (rather than legalised) drugs 15 years ago and we can see what happened and what would happen if we used their method. I posted up a video about it a couple of pages back.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Another out of sight, out of mind approach as far as I can see!

Actually, my (only) quibble with the drug injection centres is the risk of an 'out of sight, out of mind' phenomenon developing in Dublin.

Ireland already has the highest prevalence of heroin-use in the European Union. At least when we jump over needles on Dublin's side-streets, and we see people shooting-up under the shade of the Central Bank, it starts a conversation. I'm a bit worried about that conversation losing momentum if we decriminalise hard drugs & open injecting centres.

Criminalisation and street-injecting, for all their injustice and indgnity, are the very opposite of 'out of sight, out of mind'.

ScumLord wrote: »

Legalisation would be like opening a large chain store in a small town for the first time, it would obliterate the market that's there.

I strongly reject any hypothesis that the State, burdened with bureaucracy; burdened with a legal duty of care to its customers, requiring medical and access limits on prescriptions, and limits on drug potencies & interactions, would be in a position to compete with renegade drug gangs.

Just look at the unintended consequences of the methadone scheme in Ireland. There's a busy trade in methadone, where users sell their free methadone for an 'upgrade' to illicit street drugs, and those who cannot afford illicit street drugs are buying (or bartering for) methadone, or else they're buying illicit methadone to use it with a benzodiazpene, or even something like meth. You also have the teenagers who begin their drug addiction through purchasing illicit methadone.

As you can see from all of this, a large consequence of the methadone scheme is a net monetary transfer from the State to drugs suppliers, when the proceeds of the sale of methadone are used to purchase harder drugs.

The only people who truly benefit from methadone are the groggy 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds in the suburbs. But they'd already be dead if it weren't for methadone, and so they don't represent a net loss to the drug supplier.

Suppliers don't give a fuck about methadone.

Now, I can already anticipate your next point, that methadone does not elicit the same high as street heroin. Correct. But neither will the potency of state-supplied heroin be able to match street-heroin. The state will be bound within strict rules regarding potency, dosage, and frequency of administration, as well as strict rules on access to the scheme. (Even under the methadone scheme, at present, one must effectively be addicted to heroin before the state will prescribe methadone)

Elsewhere in your post, you suggest that 'if drug gangs can't find enough of a market for their drugs their business will simply collapse'. You'rte failing to realise that the illegal 'private sector' trader will always have the upper hand on the State. He doesn't need to do quality-control, he doesn't need to limit his potencies, he can sell at any frequency, he pays no taxes, and since he's probably part of an international gang anyway, of course he can access large volumes of drugs in the international supply trade.

You may not even need to legalise the drug to do that. Simply not convicting heroin users under state care for a temporary period while they decimate the heroin market would be enough.

I agree with decriminalisation, once the detox and counselling services are upgraded. The money wasted in prosecuting addiction is idiotic, but it's no less idiotic to think that legalisation is the answer.

Other drugs like cannabis, ecstasy, and the psychedelics should all be legalised.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I'm speaking only about heroin in the context of the OP.

But even in those cases, I wouldn't expect the State to necessarily compete against the illicit supply of drugs. A business with no Q.A. laboratory, no bureaucracy, no legal obligations and no tax liability will always be able to undercut the State, unless you're proposing that taxpayers subsidise the likes of ecstasy and acid, which is preposterous.

ScumLord

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Now, I can already anticipate your next point, that methadone does not elicit the same high as street heroin. Correct. But neither will the potency of state-supplied heroin be able to match street-heroin. The state will be bound within strict rules regarding potency, dosage, and frequency of administration, as well as strict rules on access to the scheme. (Even under the methadone scheme, at present, one must effectively be addicted to heroin before the state will prescribe methadone)

The medical industry already supplies the best heroin available. There would of course be a cut off but I think it would be in excess of what you'd get in a wrap off the street. Street heroin has very low potency and is mixed with other stuff, it's usually the other stuff that causes problems. I'm still convinced that medical grade heroin would be a much more desirable product to street heroin. Criminal gangs just couldn't compete with the quality or legal industrial scale production.

Elsewhere in your post, you suggest that 'if drug gangs can't find enough of a market for their drugs their business will simply collapse'. You'rte failing to realise that the illegal 'private sector' trader will always have the upper hand on the State. He doesn't need to do quality-control, he doesn't need to limit his potencies, he can sell at any frequency, he pays no taxes, and since he's probably part of an international gang anyway, of course he can access large volumes of drugs in the international supply trade.

As long as you discount industrialised production. A medical company could undercut street prices quite easily. They'd be producing heroin at a stable price point in quantities that would put any illegal lab to shame. They could produce the drug close to source prices and don't need to pay a multitude of middle men a cut to move it, cut it down, package it and then find ways of selling it. It's like expecting a family owned sausage maker to compete with a international food producer on price, it's just not going to happen. The only reason most people sell drugs is the mark ups are obscene, reduce those markups and people just won't take the risk.

But even in those cases, I wouldn't expect the State to necessarily compete against the illicit supply of drugs. A business with no Q.A. laboratory, no bureaucracy, no legal obligations and no tax liability will always be able to undercut the State, unless you're proposing that taxpayers subsidise the likes of ecstasy and acid, which is preposterous.

They have different overheads, pretty massive ones that can vary wildly. Shipments getting stopped, bribes, underlings to pay and they need to pay them handsomely, the lavish lifestyle that makes all the risk worth it. Then there's the attacks on their wealth, if the tax man decides to show up everything they've gained can be taken away from them. That's not so bad when the money's rolling in.

And even in the unlikely event that drug dealers could somehow match the production rate of a large medical company (who would already be manufacturing the drug, so all they need to do is up their production), the state can always subsidise the drug so the dealers have no chance.

I've made this argument with cannabis over and over again. illegal operations just can't compete with industrialised legal operations. There's just no comparison at all.

mynamejeff

Chuchote wrote: »

No need to theorise; Portugal decriminalised (rather than legalised) drugs 15 years ago and we can see what happened and what would happen if we used their method. I posted up a video about it a couple of pages back.

i watched that video and found it to be very one sided

did it show junkies destroying them selfs and thier families with drugs

did it show the mess that even cannabis makes of a person when they smoke it from a young age

or the damage pills to you people ?

The realities are very different to the flowery story told in your video

and for the record i would very much support the legalization of cannabis only in a tightly controlled and heavily regulated way

Chuchote

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I strongly reject any hypothesis that the State, burdened with bureaucracy; burdened with a legal duty of care to its customers, requiring medical and access limits on prescriptions, and limits on drug potencies & interactions, would be in a position to compete with renegade drug gangs.

In fact, it would, for one very simple reason: if the State were doing as Portugal does and giving drugs for free to registered addicts, while helping them with housing, work and psychiatric care, it would do one thing instantly.

Drugs, if criminals are involved, are a pyramid scheme. I sell you some heroin nice and cheap, until you're hooked, then I put the price up. When you plead for your dope, I suggest to you that you introduce a friend and you can have it for cheap, just this once. So when your friend is hooked, he or she then has to find another friend…

If the addicts are getting the drugs for free, this pyramid scheme doesn't operate any more.

http://health.spectator.co.uk/the-case-for-prescription-heroin/

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

The medical industry already supplies the best heroin available. There would of course be a cut off but I think it would be in excess of what you'd get in a wrap off the street.

There is no dispute regarding the purity of pharmaceutical-grade heroin (diamorphine). The problems I have been raising are the intensity of the high, the dosage, and the frequency of administration.

For example, regarding intensity, a street addict, especially one with increasing opiate resistance, will often take a benzodiazepine, or a stimulant like cocaine (referred to as speedballing) to intensify the high. No responsible clinic could administer that, because of its potentially catastrophic effect. Nor would they allow addicts access to the dosages and frequencies of administration that occur unregulated on the streets.

For this reason, I suspect that any scheme the provided pharmaceutical-grade heroin to users would see some initial success, but would have serious difficulty in avoiding the same doomed fate as methadone.

By the way, regarding the purity of street-heroin, yes, there is a wide variety in its potency. But diamorphine is easy to produce. I mean sure, you or I can't produce it, but the production of heroin is cheap and straightforward, there are thousands of heroin 'laboratories' in kitchens and backyards from Mexico City to Rangoon, using basic kicthenware and rudimentary chemicals. There's a great account of this in the book Dreamland, by Sam Quinones (Bloomsbury, 2015). Now, hygiene can be a problem, but achieving potency is not a problem, even for kitchen chemists without a high-school education. That's why heroin is so ubiquitous & cheap.

Not to mention the fact that we appear to be on the verge of mass-production of synthetic heroin, right here in our own back yards.

As long as you discount industrialised production. A medical company could undercut street prices quite easily. They'd be producing heroin at a stable price point in quantities that would put any illegal lab to shame.

I really think you don't appreciate how easy it is for pure diamorphine to be produces. But the costs of production aren't even the biggest issue. The clinical facilities required for the administration of heroin would be the biggest cost--the mark-up of the pharmaceutical companies involved, the necessity of having doctors, nurses, pharmacists, laboratories, psychologists and counsellors, and all the attendant resources required of the clinics.

the state can always subsidise the drug so the dealers have no chance.

And I assume you extent this to cocaine and ecstasy? You want the state to pay for coke-users nights out?

illegal operations just can't compete with industrialised legal operations. There's just no comparison at all.

Tell that to the illegal traders in illicit cigarettes on Moore Street that are gnawing away at the profit margins of bona fide retailers. Or the trade in fake designer brands. Of course they can.

ScumLord

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Tell that to the illegal traders in illicit cigarettes on Moore Street that are gnawing away at the profit margins of bona fide retailers. Or the trade in fake designer brands. Of course they can.

You're still comparing two very different types of production. The fake cigarettes may be coming from multiple sources with small production runs. Just because you see a few crates in a dodgy retailer doesn't mean their production is anywhere near the level of legitimate producers. Black market cigarettes appear in a few places, compared to every shop, and venue with a cigarette machine for legal producers. The scale of production between the two are on two entirely different levels. For every truck of illegal cigarettes that get's into the country there's probably 50 legal importations happening at the same time. There's no way for instance that the illegal producers could replace the legal suppliers and put cigarettes in every shop in the country.

Clothes that are infringing on copyrights would be the same thing. You only see them show up in dodgy places, not in every high street shop. The other thing to take into account is the massive markup on both these products. This is what allows small scale productions to get a foot in. They can produce a similar garment for around the same price often cheaper but are willing to take in less money. There's no licensing to pay. If you didn't apply the licensing and tax to legal clothes the difference in price probably wouldn't be that great.

There's also the obvious difference in quality, which is the major problem with all black market goods. One thing you buy may be ****ty but it works, the next one could be completely different and be toxic. There's no consistency and there's no come back. This drives up costs.

Chuchote

mynamejeff wrote: »

i watched that video and found it to be very one sided

did it show junkies destroying them selfs and thier families with drugs

did it show the mess that even cannabis makes of a person when they smoke it from a young age

or the damage pills to you people ?

The realities are very different to the flowery story told in your video

and for the record i would very much support the legalization of cannabis only in a tightly controlled and heavily regulated way

Look up the videos and reports of Portugal's decriminalisation and its effects yourself. Find more and read them.

Porguguese decriminalisation has stopped people destroying their lives with drugs - or at least, it has allowed the few addicts that are left to maintain their addiction within a normal life, without any of the mess. It has stopped the pyramid of sales. It has stopped drugs from seeming glamorous; sad old addicts go to the clinic and get help, rather than it being a daring blow against society. Few new ones start.

And I could not agree more with you about cannabis smokers, heroin users, pill-poppers and so on damaging themselves disastrously by using drugs. I had friends who were talented, funny, brilliant and who used cannabis and LSD in the 1960s - the least damaged of them were robbed of all ambition and drive; the worst had brain damage. And cannabis is now many times stronger than it was then. Horrible stuff now.

But legalising the drugs and having them supplied for free to addicts under stringent medical control totally changes the market.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

You're still comparing two very different types of production.

I was responding to the general proposition that illegal operations just can't compete with industrialised legal operations, which is why I raised illicit cigarettes.

In any case, the pharmaceutical process is not the main cost that will be incurred by the State, rather the clinical costs associated with providing supervised injectible heroin for thousands of people on a permanent basis, if the scheme were even remotely successful.

I'm interested to hear your explanation for cocaine, though. Is it your contention that the State should be subsidising cocaine for any party-goer that wants it?

Chuchote wrote: »

Look up the videos and reports of Portugal's decriminalisation and its effects yourself. Find more and read them.
[...]
But legalising the drugs and having them supplied for free to addicts under stringent medical control totally changes the market.

Why oh why do you keep using the words legalisation and decriminalisation interchangeably?

Portugal has not legalised drugs.

I favour decriminalisation, but certainly not legalisation, of drugs. There's a huge difference between the two ideas.

ScumLord

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was responding to the general proposition that illegal operations just can't compete with industrialised legal operations, which is why I raised illicit cigarettes.

And they can't really compete, they survive in a black market because they don't have to compete with the big companies.

In any case, the pharmaceutical process is not the main cost that will be incurred by the State, rather the clinical costs associated with providing supervised injectible heroin for thousands of people on a permanent basis, if the scheme were even remotely successful.

But we'll be saving a fortune in other areas, policing being one. I'd much rather see that money spent on care rather than punishment.

I'm interested to hear your explanation for cocaine, though. Is it your contention that the State should be subsidising cocaine for any party-goer that wants it?

Cocaine is a different kettle of fish, it's often the reserve of more affluent people. I don't think it's anywhere near as addictive as heroin, addiction to cocaine isn't as widespread as most other drugs but the quality of the drug in this country would even have me speculating whether Irish people are actually taking cocaine or just some concoction of chemicals that's designed to ape some of the symptoms of cocaine use.

I'd set that one aside for now and concentrate on drugs we know more about and drugs that have huge social problems associated with them.

Chuchote

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was responding to the general proposition that illegal operations just can't compete with industrialised legal operations, which is why I raised illicit cigarettes.

In any case, the pharmaceutical process is not the main cost that will be incurred by the State, rather the clinical costs associated with providing supervised injectible heroin for thousands of people on a permanent basis, if the scheme were even remotely successful.

I'm interested to hear your explanation for cocaine, though. Is it your contention that the State should be subsidising cocaine for any party-goer that wants it?


Why oh why do you keep using the words legalisation and decriminalisation interchangeably?

Because I made a mistake. Of course I meant decriminalisation, not legalisation.

Cocaine for party-goers? (Shrug) I suppose, if they want to go and take it under supervision, register as addicts, and go through the compulsory psychological counselling, de-addiction help, etc.

Pickpocket

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Will you take me to... junkie tooown

Anyone else think the zombie problem in the capital and the cities is getting worse instead of better since the crash?

Why on earth would you think that chronic drug use would decrease during a recession?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.