h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It wouldn't really breed much of a sense of responsibility in people now would it?
People are responsible for their own actions and having a bail out system like that leads to no consequences for people's actions.

I suspect most people would not use this system responsibly and its cost would spiral out of control.

Sorry but it's a horribly bad idea in my opinion.

I think you have some horible things to say there, Orcus.

You are against an idea that could help people by lessening the crime addicts engage in and therefore creating fewer victims of crime, lowering prostitution because men and women locked in that often dangerous industry would no longer need that work to pay for their habit. These are the realities of heroin addiction. The consequences of what happens at present are awful and the way we as a society deal or rather fail to deal with them impact on us all at some level.

Primarily because you think people will say to themselves something like "Oh I can drop out now and know that the government will keep providing me with smack if I get myself a habit" you fnd it a horribly bad idea.

If you can honestly think that I have to ask you how many heroin addicts you actually know, because of every single one I know if you had offered them free heroin for life if they promised to be addicts, *before* they were addicts then not one would have said "yes please". Not one of the people I know ever wanted to be an addict ever but life can turn some people into addicts even if they dont like the idea. I dont know or know of anyone who thought being a junkie would be a good idea.

Do you think we should ban alcohol because alcoholics get extra government handouts due to their medical condition or that we should just cut off the extra handouts or the handouts to them all together?

You see despite this system being in place you dont see people in a head long rush to become hooked on booze just because its there for them as a safety net. People dont choose to become junkies anymore than they choose to become alkies. It is a state people who are desperate and damaged end up in.

You talk about responsibility but what about our responsibility to look after those less fortuante than ourselves? What about a little collective responsibility?

one love

Yes Blicky I have been reading. My views on pricing are on posting 6.

RF

OK the reason heroin should be free is this:

It makes better sense financially to give people what they create an awful lot of expensive mess in pursuit of in the first place.

Medically it makes sense, if people are turning up for free doses of heroin you can build a link and keep a check on their health. Many people who are offered methodone cannot stick with the programme for various reasons and return to heroin use and slip through the cracks in the system.

Socially it makes more sense if peple have a habit they cant kick at that point in their life to concentrate rehab resources on those who are ready to be helped. At present rehab programmes because of political pressure are not allowed to be as client focused as they need to be. I know crack addicts who have dropped out of rehab even though they knew they would end up in prison as a result because they didnt want to be around junkies. Their choice, but whats the point of a rehab service that has its hands tied because other the media and some people who dont need the service themselves dont like what they might be doing.



What society has done and continues to do is create a system for dealing with addiction which at many points punishes those who suffer everyday from addiction, the addicts. Society and the media vilify addicts and turn them into hate figures even though a high proportion of addicts come from very deprived backgrounds have suffered various kinds of abuse as children r have been coerced/forced into addiction by pimps. Rather than pitying such people society choses a system that makes survival difficult and recovery doubley so.

one love

Seems like we're talking at cross-purposes here Blicky . I'm talking about purchase of legalised drugs for recreational purposes from licensed purveyors, pretty much the way the alcohol industry works at present. Which drugs to class as "recreational" is, of course, open to debate. I believe that if such a system were in place, then there should be a charge, and possibly taxation, of those drugs.

You'realking about rehab centres for addicts trying to quit "hard" drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. In this case, I don't believe that people should pay for what is, effectively, a medical treatment.

It would be an idea if any taxation raised from the legal sale of "recreational" drugs was hypothecated to pay for treatment and rehab centres for those trying to quit. But that's probably a bit too pie in the sky.

RF

I dont think its pie in the sky I think its good sense, but it ever happening...

uhh, that´s a tricky one.
i read in the past couple of books about drugs, the psychical and the physical aspect of taking drugs, being addicted and getting clean.

in fact i think it´s an absolutely stupid law that heroin,lsd, cocaine, crack etc. are illegal. i mean it´s impossible to kill yourself with lsd, but HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF ALCOHOL & THE CONSEQUENCES OF CIGARETTES ??- thousands !!!!

the reasons why some drugs are illegal and coffee, tea, cigarrtes and alcohol are legal are just arbitrary. i just accept the law coz they would sent me to jail if i wouldn´t.

I *mostly* ignore the law as they mightonly send me to jail if they catch me

I look after myself and choose carefully when, how much and what I take because I only have this one body and brain and its quite easy to wreck both if you're not careful, by both legal and illegal means.

'I think you have some horible things to say there, Orcus.'

Well I think this idea desperately naive, sorry.

"You are against an idea that could help people by lessening the crime addicts engage in and therefore creating fewer victims of crime, lowering prostitution because men and women locked in that often dangerous industry would no longer need that work to pay for their habit. These are the realities of heroin addiction. The consequences of what happens at present are awful and the way we as a society deal or rather fail to deal with them impact on us all at some level."

And you think all this would disappear because we dish it out for free? I think you are wrong. Most people start on heroin in their teens do they not? Are we to provide free heroin for 15 year olds? That's a responsible attitude, how about strychnine for babies?


"Primarily because you think people will say to themselves something like "Oh I can drop out now and know that the government will keep providing me with smack if I get myself a habit" you fnd it a horribly bad idea."

People will do this, I've known people like this. People abuse systems, always will and always have. This system will be no different. It also provides *no incentive* to get away from drugs, also not a good plan.

"If you can honestly think that I have to ask you how many heroin addicts you actually know, because of every single one I know if you had offered them free heroin for life if they promised to be addicts, *before* they were addicts then not one would have said "yes please". Not one of the people I know ever wanted to be an addict ever but life can turn some people into addicts even if they dont like the idea. I dont know or know of anyone who thought being a junkie would be a good idea."

I don't know any but I know plenty of people addicted to other substances. So what? Is this conversation limited only to heroin addicts and their friends?

"Do you think we should ban alcohol because alcoholics get extra government handouts due to their medical condition or that we should just cut off the extra handouts or the handouts to them all together?"

What extra handouts do they get? Please elaborate I have two close relatives who are afflicted thus and I don't see them getting any "extra handouts".

"You see despite this system being in place you dont see people in a head long rush to become hooked on booze just because its there for them as a safety net. People dont choose to become junkies anymore than they choose to become alkies. It is a state people who are desperate and damaged end up in."

I did not advocate not doing anything about it. I just don't agree with the resonse currently being proposed.

"You talk about responsibility but what about our responsibility to look after those less fortuante than ourselves? What about a little collective responsibility?"

Well that's just a circular argument. It's a tough world people have to deal with it. Society must provide some sort of safety net but this system seems to remove any requirement for people to behave in a reasonable fashion. If this system were to completely remove the need for a police force and health service to treat this sort of thing and pay for itself then fine but there will always need to be both. So it won't pay for itself and so the taxpayer will have to bail everyone out no matter what they do in this system. You cannot have a bottomless safety net, it's unworkable and unrealistic.

You cannot have a bottomless safety net, it's unworkable and unrealistic.

I thought the idea of safety nets is that you place them some way above the bottom



This conversation is by no means restricted to Heroin addicts and those who know them. I was not suggesting that because I do nknow addicts that I know more than you, but your lack of knowledge might well affect your argument.

"People will do this, I've known people like this. People abuse systems, always will and always have. This system will be no different. It also provides *no incentive* to get away from drugs, also not a good plan."

See you dont know anyone affected by heroin addiction but you say you know people "like this". Just how "like this" are these people you know?

The present system with people being trown in jail, catching aids from sharing neddles or unprotected sex while working in prostitution, spending most of the cash they get hold of onsmack while their children go hungry and dirty and possibly get taken into care does not stop some people. That system does not work for them. It has not worked for years and will not suddenly start working.

Yes people abuse systems, but that's not a reason for us to have income support, the national health service or free schooling for chidren. The minority who abuse systems should not get in the way of us helping those in genuine need.

I did not say that providing addicts with free heroin woule eradicate crime, I said it would lessen crime associated with addicts stealing and working as prostitutes.

I know alcoholics who get more benefits because of their condition than other people in similar circumstances, ie number of children in the household...housing costs etc...etc...

Their neighbours are not gicving up their jobs and picking up three litre bottles of frosty jack cider to exploit this situation. Does this surprise you?



"Well that's just a circular argument. It's a tough world people have to deal with it. Society must provide some sort of safety net but this system seems to remove any requirement for people to behave in a reasonable fashion. If this system were to completely remove the need for a police force and health service to treat this sort of thing and pay for itself then fine but there will always need to be both. So it won't pay for itself and so the taxpayer will have to bail everyone out no matter what they do in this system."

Society is wasting more and more of the tax payers (your) money that you are whineing selfishly about providing a safetnet that just isnt working. Who is that benefitting? Not you who is paying for it and not the people it should be there for!

one love

The smallest reckoning for crimes caused by addicts, that I have found, is one third of all crimes are caused by addicts to fund their habits. The meteropolitan poice budget for 2004/05 is almost £3billion (and that is only in the London area) so there is, immediatly £1 billion for a drug provision scheme.

The heaviest 1% users of heroin use between 500 and 1000mg a day. Using generic pharmecutical diamorphine hydrochloride that is a grand cost of £40.00 a day per addict. Most users use only 50-60mg a day. With an estimated 150000 addicts in the UK the cost of this would be £6000000 - if they all used the heaviest amount.

Kids are already getting hooked on heroin. We already prescribe them Methedone to help them get off heroin. Methadone is an opiate. It happens to be more toxic and has a similar level of addiction to heroin. Free heroin prescribed to addicted 15 year olds would be the responsible thing to do - both for the addict, the addicts family and the society in general.

The main point with cheap/free government provided drugs would be that no one would be making a profit off of getting people hooked on drugs. With noone making a living from drugs there would be no pushers at schools, so the amount of teens getting hooked on free starters would go down.

The Swiss did a small trial of giving heroin addicts free heroin. It seemed to work. They settled down, most of them got a job, stopped commiting crime, became responsible members of society (much like in the 19th Century, when opium and laudenum were easily avaible and affordable).

Well enough for now Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

If it worked why did they not follow it through?

Blickybadger, you should not throw petty insults at me it makes your argument look weak.

Streetcrime and drug use is a *very* complex problem linked to a load of factors probably the most important of which is social deprivation. There is no simple solution and it will not go away. Surely the only realistic way to minimise the problem is to include the poorest echelons in society and not exclude them. I don't know how the is best achieved but simple single solutions to complex problems are non-existent.

The Swiss study is ongoing (as far as I know) - but they have similar problems to us. Politicians afraid to look soft on Drugs (though not as bad as ours) and a public who think that giving drugs away for 'free' is bad, wrong and will condemn them and you to hell.

Streetcrime and drug use are very complex problems but it is obvious that our current policy is a failure and will get worse (along the lines of an arms war). However taking away the need for addicts to commit crimes to get a fix seems to me a good step forward. This would also hopefully free up money to start on the social deprivation policy.

On another note most addicts that I have met also, eventually, want to get clean - so much so that I have seen some go cold turkey. Now that is a genuinely unpleasant experience - one that even I would not wish on anyone, and I have wished some pretty bad stuff on people

Well work calls Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

I think soft drugs should be legalised. Looking at the USA one can see what happens when the government opens the war on drugs. Living in the Netherlands I can see the benefits of a system that condones canabis. In the case of canabis I think the biggest advantage is simply government control of the method of supply. For instance there are rules about places where the 'coffeeshops' (don't ask me why they're called that, most of 'em don't even sell coffee) can be located i.e. not near schools and such. In this thread people have talked about the government itself supplying the drugs, instead of a third party, I'm curious how that would be organised.
I think the Netherlands should really take the lead in Europe and finally legalise soft drugs instead of the policy of conconement of the past decades. Unfortunately, the confessionalist party is trying to form a single European policy banning the use of soft drugs.

Have you got a link to that Swiss study Crescent? I'd be very interested to read it and would be delighted to be proved wrong.

I think the last post got the nail on the head. There will always be unfortunate people who fall for any kind of 'easy' way out, whether it's drink, drugs, crime, or even those 'get rich quick' pyramid schemes that have people blindly handing over a large portion on their own money in the hope that lots of other people will do the same for them. If it becomes difficult for them to have one vice they will simply go on to the next one and so on.

I am speaking as a drug addict here... I smoke 20 ciggies a day. Now, I don't think it's a problem as such; I am holding down a job and have a full life (although I have to go outside occasionally when visiting non-smoking friends). I have even (in legal circumstances) tried cannabis and although I enjoyed the sensation I do not think that the risk of imprisonment and loss of career through continued use is justified.

I am sure I am not alone in being able to make rational decisions, in fact I would assume most of the population would simply decide whether they want to smoke dope or not in the same way that most people have decided whether or not they smoke tobacco. We are not little children who need to be guided by a 'Nanny State', but in fact the people who decide who will make day to day decisions on our behalf.

Maybe we need to campaign for a full ballot in elections... show your opinions, share your thoughts. If none of the candidates appeals to you, spoil your ballot paper so that your vote still gets your opinion across.

Off my soap box now, I think I'll enjoy the rest of half term!

Consider people who smoke. Most of them at some point in their lives attempt to quit, or at least that's my perception. And smokers are an accepted part of society, so there's nowhere near the like the same pressure to quit. Also bear in mind that nicotine is just about as addictive as it gets.

I think almost all drug addicts would eventually want to get out, and that the current system doesn't help them much.

The figures quoted on money spent on crime versus cost of supplying drugs seem quite convincing. However, to try to throw a spanner in the works, not all addict-related crime would go away, I would expect it to drop to around normalish levels for their respective demographics myself. Also the costs for supplying drugs provided were only for heroin, and not for any other drugs. It also ignores costs of proper facilities and staff.

I'm still with the idea. As Blicky said, this is the same principle that bought us the wellfare state, and I've never talked to anyone who's lived under that particular system who thinks its a bad thing.

Perhaps a junkie support system could even be an extension of it. Maybe Jobs For Junkies, well honest hard work, when rewarded, builds self-esteem and could well be the ideal thing for some.

Orcus, you spoke about including the poorest into society, well I'm talking about including drug addicts in society as well. Because the alternative is Us against Them, Good against Evil excetera. I'm not one for crusading.

http://www.cfdp.ca/switz.html is a link to the first such study. I think there were others after it, but I will have to do a bit of digging to find out. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

This thing about nicotine being more addictive than heroin, cocaine and the like is often brought up. By what measure is this claim made?

I personally managed to kick a 13 year nicotine habit 2 and a half years ago and the halucinations, fits, puke, cold sweats and the like were notable by their absence. The same cannot be said for heroin, surely it is much harder to quit than cigarettes in fact. The wihdrawal symptoms are nowhere near as severe.

Thanks for the link

http://www.marijuananews.com/relative_addictiveness_of_drugs_.htm

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Both studies quoted here rank nicotine highest for dependence. Withdrawal symptoms, however, are light.