Make Heroin Legal

magpie

The Proposition:

Remove the crime associated with Heroin by making it legal and freely distributed in a pure form through GPs.

Those who choose to take smack should be allowed to do so, and have a source of uncontaminated heroin available for free so they can couch out to their hearts' content. Also make pure heroin available to prison inmates.

End result, no more petty crime to pay for drugs, which are cut/contaminated leading to illness. No more sharing of syringes leading to HIV/AIDS. No more criminal activity related to drug trafficking. Methodone is pointless as it substitutes one addiction for another.

Discuss.

cock_adodel_do

That's the most stupid thing I ever read, how about just trying to find out why people want to take heroin in the first place.

:rolleyes:

the_syco

A load of junkies would come to here, for the free trip. Look at how many people goto Amsterdam for legal weed, and you must pay for that there.

Also, Methodone may substitute one addiction for another, but does it habve the same effect, physically? Black veins, etc? Also, does it allow the user to continue on with a "normal" life, or do they still have to daily mug people for money to buy the stuff?

I am MAN

magpie wrote:

The Proposition:

Remove the crime associated with Heroin by making it legal and freely distributed in a pure form through GPs.

Those who choose to take smack should be allowed to do so, and have a source of uncontaminated heroin available for free so they can couch out to their hearts' content. Also make pure heroin available to prison inmates.

End result, no more petty crime to pay for drugs, which are cut/contaminated leading to illness. No more sharing of syringes leading to HIV/AIDS. No more criminal activity related to drug trafficking. Methodone is pointless as it substitutes one addiction for another.

Discuss.

You say those want to take heroin can do so? So what do I go to my GP and say? What condition would this fall under? it would still have be illegally obtained.

Are you a retard?

magpie

how about just trying to find out why people want to take heroin in the first place.

Whereas it's ok for people to drink to excess and for the government to derive revenue from it. People will always want to escape, so make it safe rather than a refuge for criminality.

A load of junkies would come to here, for the free trip

Make it Europe-wide. And so what? Junkies with free unlimited H are pretty docile.

does it allow the user to continue on with a "normal" life, or do they still have to daily mug people for money to buy the stuff?

There are plenty of heroin addicts who lead normal lives, have jobs etc.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it'd be nice wouldn't it. But it's never going to happen, not in our lifetime anyway. This country/world is gona be ****ed up with drug addicts for a long time yet.

John R

I am MAN wrote:

You say those want to take heroin can do so? So what do I go to my GP and say? What condition would this fall under? it would still have be illegally obtained.

Are you a retard?

Apparently you are.

Whatever about the +- of the subject matter He just said that he proposed making it legally available, so obviously it would be legal.

maxheadroom

I'll come back to this thread later when I have tme to frame an appropriate response. Let me repeat what I said in the transport forum where this came up as a side issue for now:

maxheadroom wrote:

This is a horrendous idea, and there are lots of valid medical reasons why simply providing heroin addicts with a relatively unrestricted legal source of an injecale, habit forming drug is a really really bad idea. One of them (specific to heroin) is that as your tolerance for the euphoric effects of the drug increases, you need more drug to get the same effect, however your tolerance for the toxic effects (such as depression of central breathing control) does not increase. Its one of the reasons that we use methadone instead of heroin for maintenance treatment programmes.

Your idea may affect some types of crime (organised distribution etc), but does nothing to help the addicts or to affect their socio-economic conditions which leads to a lot of the crime associated with drug addiction

I am MAN

John R wrote:

Apparently you are.

Whatever about the +- of the subject matter He just said that he proposed making it legally available, so obviously it would be legal.

I may have misread that part.

Are you a retard was referring to his post in general.

I noticed you didnt add anything...MUPPET.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Your idea may affect some types of crime (organised distribution etc), but does nothing to help the addicts or to affect their socio-economic conditions which leads to a lot of the crime associated with drug addiction

well if it was no longer illegal, there would no longer be huge punishments for making and selling it... so it would be cheaper, and addicts wouldn't have to use as much money for a fix, maybe wouldn't have to steal to get the money.. etc etc etc

The Corinthian

magpie wrote:

Remove the crime associated with Heroin by making it legal and freely distributed in a pure form through GPs.

Hahaha. It's already cheaper on the streets than it would cost to visit a GP.

maxheadroom

the_syco wrote:

Also, Methodone may substitute one addiction for another, but does it habve the same effect, physically? Black veins, etc? Also, does it allow the user to continue on with a "normal" life, or do they still have to daily mug people for money to buy the stuff?

Methodone is used in two forms - maintenance therapy and detox therapy. Under maintenance therapy you are substituting one opioid for another, however methodone has many advantages from a therapeutic point of view, one of which is that it is taken orally rather than injected.

People on methadone maintenance therapy can live normal lives as their methadone is provided (for free) by a specially licenced pharmacy and supervised by a specially trained GP.

I will look up some hard figures on the thereapeutic windows of methadone and diamorphine and see what I can find about adverse effects

Abdiel

Diamorphene (Pure Heroin) is commonly prescribed to terminal cancer patients in other countries. Mainly it acts as a pain killer, and in general allows its users to lead relatively normal lives outside - pure heroin does not have a lot of the side effects that street heroin does and aside from pain relief most people could function perfectly normal while on pure heroin.
I've seen a terminal cancer patient take his injection of diamorphene, then get up on his exercise bike to do some exercise and then go and do some gardening - not exactly the vegetative state normally asssociated with someone on H.
You can argue that people are throwing their lives away, etc by taking heroin, but it's their life, they can live it whatever way they like as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to lead their lives as they choose.
I am not saying I agree with the idea of legalising it, but think the issue should be fully considered rather than juping on the "war on drugs" bandwagon. Prohibition is as much a part of the problem as drugs themselves.

John R

I have absolutely no interest in taking the stuff, legal or not, I have seen first hand how it can destroy people and those close to them.

However it is becoming increasingly obvious that the side-effects of drug prohibition is far worse than the ill effects of the drug taking. From the rampant petty crime from the junkies looking for cash for their next score to the increasing power and destruction of whole communities from organised crime based around drug importation and distribution.

Society could much better cope with the care of addicts than it can cope with trying to stamp out illegal drugs.

There isn't a democratic country on the planet where the stuff isn't easily and constantly available. The idea that somehow the illegality is a disincentive to taking the stuff is a dead arguement, if anything the machinery of the illegal trade has promoted drug use more than it ever would have been if it had been legally available.

cock_adodel_do

This thread is a waste of web space.

Good luck :rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you are a waste of every type of space.

cock_adodel_do 1
thread 0

egan007

Are you related to michael mc dowell?
sounds like one of his hair brained ideas

John R

I am MAN wrote:

I may have misread that part.

Are you a retard was referring to his post in general.

Oh, well in that case "are you a retard" is a wonderfully insightful and thought provoking point, thank you so very much for making it. Now I can see the issue in a completly different light.

I am MAN wrote:

I noticed you didnt add anything...MUPPET.

People in glass houses...


How about for your next post you try very very very hard to make a relevant point WITHOUT any personal attacks.



Every time this topic comes up (not particularly on boards) there is the typical tabloid knee jerk reaction as if it is a completely meritless argument, I fear that it will be a very long time before the topic will be debatable in public without the very real prospect of anyone speaking ub being branded a drug pusher, child killer, etc.

There are many politicians (in the UK at least) who have made noises in the direction of sweeping changes in the legal status of many classified drugs however very few if any would publicly make a stand because of the fear of a barrage of bad publicity.

magpie

Some interesting reading from the pro-legalisation camp http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,589190,00.html:

In a pamphlet for the Liberal Democrat thinktank, the Centre for Reform, Mr Wilkinson, said that Britain has the most rampant heroin problem in the western world - 270,000 users compared with only 1,000 registered addicts in 1971 - and more heroin-related crime than the US.

"The only way to reduce the problem... is to supply heroin officially to users in a way that will minimise the leakage of those supplies," said Mr Wilkinson.

He urges a two-year pilot scheme, funded and monitored by the Home Office, in which heroin in supplied by a unit that provides medical assistance, counselling and supervision.

At Westminster MPs heard even more radical advocacy from witnesses who argued that heroin in itself is not harmful and that it is the illegal production and distribution of Class A drugs of dubious quality which both pushes up prices - and crime - and endangers lives.

"The issue is the harm, not the supply," said Roger Warren Evans, a barrister, and co-author of the pro-legalisation Angel Declaration.

Nick Davies told MPs that he was "extremely grateful" that the ex-drugs tsar Keith Halliwell's strategy had failed. "If he had succeeded, there would be more illness, more death and more crime," as shortages pushed up prices and reduced the quality of banned drugs.

"No drug becomes safer when you hand its production and distribution to criminals," said Mr Davies, who stressed that he did not want people to use heroin but did want them to have informed choices.

The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act had created a form of "pyramid selling" whereby users sold drugs to their friends and smoked the profits, thus spreading it rapidly through towns and villages as well as big cities.

Boggle

Although I have long held the belief that hash/grass should be legal I would consider making heroine legal possibly a step too far. The distinction I would draw is it's addictiveness: hash is'nt physically addictive (it is mentally addictive for some people however - as is beer) whereas heroine is supposedly highly addictive.

Although, I have no experience in the area (and admittedly very little knowledge) I believe that this would put people at excessive risk as you can allegedly become addicted extremely quickly and I believe that this may be outside of the control of even 96% of the population.


(Dont bash the thread lads: add to it or f**k off!)

Moriarty

If you legalise it and give it to anyone who wants it, they're almost certainly not going to be paying for the full cost of providing it. So we end up in a situation where we have society subsidising people who's sole aim is to get mashed for the rest of their lives and who won't offer anything back into society. That's unsustainable.

They'd be dropping like flys from overdosing though, so I guess there is a silver lining.

Jimmy_Jazz

Sorry for going off-topic, Magpie, but I believe the word Chav originally referred to someone from Chatham, Kent.

Back on topic: Heroin is an addictive substance, and overdosing is already a problem. Making it free would only make the problem worse. As for lowering crime... maybe, but the means wouldn't justify the end.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

saw this on erowid and it seems relevant..

from http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/opiates/opiates_info2.shtml

> I think that this is an oversimplification. BTW, could you please
> explain to me why you think that "accidental overdose" is generally a
> consequence of prohibition?

I don't think this is oversimple. Was it the CATO institute that
estimated that 80% of the deaths associated with opiates would not have
occurred under a legal regime?

Accidental overdoses can occur when the dose taken is greater than what
one is used to. (excuse me for stating the obvious)
How much heroin is in a given illicit sample is usually quite variable.
Depends on how often its been cut, where it came from etc.
(excuse me again for stating the obvious)

If a batch of stronger stuff gets out onto the street then there is likely to
be an increase of ODs. This happened last year in the New York area and
eastern Canada, so I read in our papers.

It seems paradoxic to some people, but the greater the purity the safer
the stuff is, though consistency is obviously the critical factor. Under a
legal regime, such problems would be solved. Overdoses, while not eliminated
would be substantially reduced.

Here 's a little article I picked up which discusses these issues...

Copied from p.56 (Box 5-1) of 'Drugs and Behavior' by William A. McKim.

One of the greatest risks of being a heroin addict is death from heroin
overdose. Each year about one percent of all heroin addicts in the United
States die from an overdose of heroin despite having developed a fantastic
tolerance to the effects of the dr ug. In a nontolerant person the
estimated lethal dose of heroin may range from 200 to 500 mg, but addicts
have tolerated doses as high as 1800 mg without even being sick[1]. No
doubt, some overdoses are a result of mixing heroin with other drugs, but
appear to result from a sudden loss of tolerance. Addicts have been killed
one day by a dose that was readily tolerated the day before. An
explanation for this sudden loss of tolerance has been suggested by
Shepard Siegel of McMaster University, and his a ssociated, Riley Hinson,
Marvin Krank, and Jane McCully.

Siegel reasoned that the tolerance to heroin was partially conditioned to
the environment where the drug was normally administered. If the drug is
consumed in a new setting, much of the conditioned tolerance will
disappear and the addict will be more like ly to overdose. To test this
theory Siegel and associates ran the following experiment[2].

Rats were given daily intravenous injections for 30 days. The injections
were either a dextrose placebo or heroin and they were given in either the
animal colony or a different room where there was a constant white noise.
The drug and the placebo were giv en on alternate days and the drug
condition always corresponded with a particular environment so that for
some rats, the heroin was always administered in the white noise room and
the placebo was always given in the colony. For other rats the heroin ways
given in the colony and the placebo was always given in the white noise
room. Another group of rats served as a control: these were injected in
different rooms on alternate dates, but were only injected with the
dextrose and had no experience with th e heroin at all.

All rats were then injected with a large dose of heroin: 15.0 mg/kg. The
rats in one group were given the heroin in the same room where they had
previously been given heroin. (This was labeled the ST group.) The other
rats, the DT group, were given the he roin in the room where they had
previously been given the placebo.

Siegel found that 96 percent of the control group died, showing the lethal
effect of the heroin in nontolerant animals. Rats in the DT group who
receieved heroin were partially tolerant, and only 64 percent died. Only
32 percent of ST rats died, showing t hat the tolerance was even greter
when the overdose test was done in the same environment where the drug
previously had been administered.

Siegel suggested that one reason addicts suddenly lose their tolerance
could be because they take the drug in a different or unusual environment
like the rats in the DT group. Surveys of heroin addicts admitted to
hospitals suffering from heroin overdose tend to support this conclusion.
Many addicts report that they had taken the near-fatal dose in an unusual
circumstance or that their normal pattern was different on that day[2].

I don't think making heroin legal would dramatically increase the number of overdoses, and I don't think that just because it's legally available more people will try it. Whoever wants to try heroin is going to try heroin, whatever it's legal standing. People who don't want to try heroin, well they're not going to be injected with it against their will.

um jazz, no one said it should be made free..

and the end is meant to justify the means..

magpie

no one said it should be made free

Actually I did. But people who get it have to attend clinics/counselling/therapy.

So we end up in a situation where we have society subsidising people who's sole aim is to get mashed for the rest of their lives and who won't offer anything back into society

Possibly, but the percentages of people who will want to do that are miniscule, and they're already here. It's just they're spending their dole on cans of dutch gold instead. Making Heroin more freely available won't turn it into a desirable career choice, nor will it increase the numbers of people dropping out.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Actually I did. But people who get it have to attend clinics/counselling/therapy.

*Blush*

pickarooney

How about giving it away, but with less and less powerful doses?
hmm, that's just nonsense isn't it?

John R

Moriarty wrote:

If you legalise it and give it to anyone who wants it, they're almost certainly not going to be paying for the full cost of providing it. So we end up in a situation where we have society subsidising people who's sole aim is to get mashed for the rest of their lives and who won't offer anything back into society. That's unsustainable.

The rest of society is already *subsidising their lifetime addictions as it is and at a cost that puts to shade the cost of supplying a relatively basic generic chemical formula to a large number of people over a long term.


*Junkie subsidies come in many forms, everyone who has had items stolen and insurance companies who payout on stolen goods subsidise them directly.

The state in general spends a fortune on locking these wasters up in the joy on drug offences, all of that would be saved.

The law enforcement costs for drug and drug related offences are astronomical with little benefit.

Most of these people are already getting state benefit in the form of dole or "disability" benefit which goes straight to the dealers.


Any sane studies I have seen have all concluded that the net cost benefit of legalising hard drugs when all factors are taken into account would be immense.

CerebralCortex

magpie wrote:

People will always want to escape, so make it safe rather than a refuge for criminality.

Sorry maybe I misunderstand but how does dependency on a substance(especially alcohol) help one escape if thats what you mean surely it just ties you down more.

This thread to me just shows how self centred humanity is at the moment imho and how they think that that escape feeling can only be satisfied by ignoring reality, that is fooling themselfs taking a sledge to their brain (taking a drink or rollin a jay). It is like we are stuck in adolescence where we only satisfy our needs by doing things that involve little effort e.g. smoking a jay, taking a drink. We could all make each others lifes a hell of a lot easier but our arses seem to have a fondness to the cushion.

Humanity has seen better days and might not see better ones again.

Aw now I'm all angry.

People are like babies unless you clean up their shyte for them they'll wallow in it.

gandalf

OK a fair few insults flying around but loe and behold I check my inbox and not one complaint. Lads you know the story if someone acts the maggot you report it you do not react.

The following are banned from Politics for one week for various insults and reactions in this thread.

cock_adodel_do
I am MAN
John R
Mordeth

sailorboy

you havnt really taught of what you said there mate.
utter nonsense...
hash is a herb and a multi tasking drug for stimlution and even breathing problems... and a lot of other things

and for smack...
im sad to say my brother is a smack head ..........
so dont say i dont have any right to say ."your a P_RICK"
herion legal.......would you fcukin get a grip ....

seedot

A discussion of free availability of morphine and how the myth of 'Soldiers Disease', thousands of civil war veterans who were supposed to be addicted to morphine was created to justify later drug prohibition is probably relevant here.

Heroin is supposed to be a fairly safe drug to use when dosages are correctly administered (v. difficult in an unregulated, ill;egal market). People on heroin, while often boring, are generally way less annoying than people on alcohol or cocaine imho. People needing heroin are generally the scary ones.

I really don't get this social engineering thing - people who will castigate left wing economics for being control oriented and full of bureaucracy will often support the most insane policies with disastrous outcomes on the basis that if we don't stop them, all those (who?) will just sit around taking drugs / having sex / surfing the internet / whatever todays scapegoat is and society will collapse.

One thing - I think the policy of distribution through GP's would be a bit of a disaster. This was the British policy and was fine when there was a small number of people interested in taking heroin but in todays (or the late 60's when it started to be abused) environment this is just a recipe for GP's overprescribing from good or bad motives and the exces being sold on. Creates both a legal and illegal market and increases overall supply.