Peaches Geldof found dead.

[BJG1]

E24man said:

In what way ill? As a drug addict, then yes, but that's a lifestyle choice she made for herself. Mentally unstable? In all likelihood due to the drugs she chose to take. The Coroners hearing didn't note any other serious underlying illness or chronic medical conditions did they?

I would suggest that the death of her mother from a heroin overdose has a huge bearing on the decisions she took and that those decisions are indicative of mental health issues. See my long post on the previous page.

[FredClogs]

For people with chaotic lives, past traumas or just insecurity - I suspect she had all three, addictions provide a root, a rock on which to rely - it's complicated but it's a fact. Most people don't understand it but most people don't understand cancer, brain tumours or heart disease either, but they don't dismiss them.

[anonymous-user]

E24man said:

Spend any time at all around drug addicts and you realise they do not make rational and reasoned choices.

There are lots of people who have addictions and manage drug habits of legal and illegal drugs, including opiate/opioid-based ones. Ask any drug worker.

E24man said:

Having access to drugs legally could suddenly open the choice of whether to take it to not to thousands upon thousands of weak-willed people people who would in all probability become addicts in a short space of time and all the do-good liberals in the world would soon have many, many young men and ladies dying whilst they look after their children.

Nearly all gang and gun crime is linked to prohibition. Nearly every organised crime group exists because of prohibition. What we have now doesn't work. That doesn't mean everything should become a legal free-for all, but we need to start with actually having rational, clean-slated debate on the actual risks, harms and benefits of each substance.

For example, will the effects be worse than the strong evidence that half of all violent crime is linked to alcohol? Does this harm off-set the benefits for the majority of sensible drinkers? Does this harm off-set the enormous revenue and job-creation? I believe the benefits outweigh the issues with alcohol, but if it were invented today, by the harm it causes, it would probably be class A. But we've all known alcohol to be legal, so we don't question it in that manner, whist at the same time as a society we criminalise people for possessing less harmful substances which have lined the pockets of the most dangerous and destructive people in society. How ridiculous is that? There are many substances, currently controlled, where the harm they would likely cause is off-set by the benefits that would be had by producing and selling them legally.

The state can't keep up the demand for legal highs fast enough. Every time they ban something based on chemical composition, chemists alter it to fall outside the ban. At least this is taxed and out the hands of organised crime, but I'd rather people have access to ecstasy that's been made correctly than them taking something designed to feed a plant.

Weak-willed people can buy controlled substances, without that much risk of being caught. Weak-willed and addictive personalities will always find a way to 'satisfy' their weaknesses. It's near-on impossible to have a constructive debate beyond the academic world due the irrational and dogmatic approach people take. The Government's approach has been to sack scientific advisers on the drugs' council who disagree with their stupid, irrational position.

[Pixelpeep7r]

[E24man]

La Liga said:

E24man said:

Spend any time at all around drug addicts and you realise they do not make rational and reasoned choices.

There are lots of people who have addictions and manage drug habits of legal and illegal drugs, including opiate/opioid-based ones. Ask any drug worker.

I'm sure there are, but I question whether they are completely reasoned and rational when under the influence of opiates or an opiate habit?

E24man said:

Having access to drugs legally could suddenly open the choice of whether to take it to not to thousands upon thousands of weak-willed people people who would in all probability become addicts in a short space of time and all the do-good liberals in the world would soon have many, many young men and ladies dying whilst they look after their children.

Nearly all gang and gun crime is linked to prohibition. Nearly every organised crime group exists because of prohibition. What we have now doesn't work. That doesn't mean everything should become a legal free-for all, but we need to start with actually having rational, clean-slated debate on the actual risks, harms and benefits of each substance.

This is an excellent argument, except....... like Communism, you are dealing with human beings. Yes, crime is related to prohibition but pick any half way house short of complete freedom and liberalism of drugs and you will still have some degree of prohibition and crime will once again find a way to influence those in need.

What we have is far from perfect but in following your argument, the only thing that would disengage the crime element from drug distribution and control would be complete access and freedom to use drugs. Ask yourself, with human beings as your subject group and all their faults, foibles, weaknesses, needs, greeds and wants, whether that would be better than what we have now with respect to heroin?

Heroin is a specific drug with specific risks. It will make you an addict. It is incredibly difficult, both physically and mentally, to kick the addiction once you have started taking it. There is a very high risk that self-administering a single dose of heroin will kill you, whether as a first time user or a hardened addict.

Once again, none of the above statements is true of alcohol, nicotine and many other drugs so please, please, stop making the comparisons. Drawing comparisons to alcohol, nicotine and other drugs ensures you do not understand the specific issues regarding heroin.

[TTwiggy]

Making heroin legal, and available free on prescription to registered addicts, will not lead to a sudden explosion of recreational users. Heroin isn't a party drug.

What it would do however is remove a massive cash stream from the criminals while ensuring that those who use get a clean and regulated supply. Plus, of course, help for those who want to get off the drug (though this shouldn't be compulsary).

Drugs which should be made freely available and legal (by which I mean you could go into a chemist's and buy them) would include cannabis, MDMA and cocaine. These are already widely used and are all far less harmful than alcohol.

[E24man]

BJG1 said:

E24man said:

In what way ill? As a drug addict, then yes, but that's a lifestyle choice she made for herself. Mentally unstable? In all likelihood due to the drugs she chose to take. The Coroners hearing didn't note any other serious underlying illness or chronic medical conditions did they?

I would suggest that the death of her mother from a heroin overdose has a huge bearing on the decisions she took and that those decisions are indicative of mental health issues. See my long post on the previous page.

Do you have any references for this?

It wasn't mentioned by the coroner and I cannot find any reference to any treatment. Nearly all people have to deal with the death of a parent, some as children, but I don't think in itself the death of a parent is indicative of developing any mental illness.

Suffering the death of your child is an entirely different matter of course, and Bob Geldof has shown tremendous fortitude and strength of character as he continues to suffer the devastating events that befall his close family.

[BJG1]

E24man said:

I don't think in itself the death of a parent is indicative of developing any mental illness.

Neither do I - I think dying of a heroin overdose, the same way that your mother died, whilst with your 11 month child is.

[E24man]

TTwiggy said:

Making heroin legal, and available free on prescription to registered addicts, will not lead to a sudden explosion of recreational users. Heroin isn't a party drug.

What it would do however is remove a massive cash stream from the criminals while ensuring that those who use get a clean and regulated supply. Plus, of course, help for those who want to get off the drug (though this shouldn't be compulsary).

So what you are suggesting is that registered addicts get prescription grade morphine at cheap rates from their GP's and at cost to the tax-payer, whilst new starters and unregistered addicts have to still pay the street rate for the dirty, mucky stuff and still provide the career criminals with a steady income flow.

Of course, the criminals income might dip for a while but now you've made it legal there will always be more people who now have no risk of prosecution from breaking the law in trying it.

The new starters of course may become addicts and should they become registered then everything will be ok as the State and its Taxpayers will fund their habit and, according to your plan, have no compulsion to ever cease using the drug.

Did I miss anything?

Heroin could well become a Party drug under your plan for the State and its Taxpayers to support registered addicts in continuing their (now subsidised) habit without the slightest compulsion to cease using it.

[E24man]

BJG1 said:

E24man said:

I don't think in itself the death of a parent is indicative of developing any mental illness.

Neither do I - I think dying of a heroin overdose, the same way that your mother died, whilst with your 11 month child is.

Then we'll have to disagree. Without any evidence of any pre-mortem diagnosis of medical illness, I think Peaches Geldof dying of a heroin overdose whilst with her 11 month old baby is indicative a drug addict, nothing more. You may wish to read more into this but according to her medical history and the facts as ascertained by the Coroners court, you are doing exactly that, reading something into the story which the professionals involved in the case did not find.

[TTwiggy]

E24man said:

So what you are suggesting is that registered addicts get prescription grade morphine at cheap rates from their GP's and at cost to the tax-payer, whilst new starters and unregistered addicts have to still pay the street rate for the dirty, mucky stuff and still provide the career criminals with a steady income flow.

Of course, the criminals income might dip for a while but now you've made it legal there will always be more people who now have no risk of prosecution from breaking the law in trying it.

The new starters of course may become addicts and should they become registered then everything will be ok as the State and its Taxpayers will fund their habit and, according to your plan, have no compulsion to ever cease using the drug.

Did I miss anything?

Heroin could well become a Party drug under your plan for the State and its Taxpayers to support registered addicts in continuing their (now subsidised) habit without the slightest compulsion to cease using it.

Heroin is not and will never be a party drug.

The situation I have described is not some liberal blue-sky thinking, but exactly the situation that existed in this country before pressure from Uncle Sam caused the introduction of the controlled substances act, in, I think, 1972 (maybe a bit earlier).

As to your worries about the poor taxpayers; the cost of supplying one of the cheapest drugs on the planet FOC would be more than offset by the reduction in social issue costs associated with illegal useage (the police might be able to take a look at real crime for instance).

Edited to add:

Maybe take a look at this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/...

And let me know how you feel about alcohol?

Edited by TTwiggy on Thursday 24th July 14:39

[BJG1]

E24man said:

Then we'll have to disagree. Without any evidence of any pre-mortem diagnosis of medical illness, I think Peaches Geldof dying of a heroin overdose whilst with her 11 month old baby is indicative a drug addict, nothing more. You may wish to read more into this but according to her medical history and the facts as ascertained by the Coroners court, you are doing exactly that, reading something into the story which the professionals involved in the case did not find.

I think she alludes to her mother's death causing mental health issues here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9652...

pertinently, stating that she didn't grieve for her mother until she was 16

She also described her favourite musician thusly:

“He speaks as someone who understands ­depression and drug abuse, someone who lives with it every day, sarcastically praising his sober and mostly happy friends for their failed mission to save him from something they could never understand.”

and here's what her sister said in 2009

“She’s got problems just like all of us have about what happened to my mum,” Pixie says of her older sister.

“I’ve been in therapy not long ago and she has had a hard time.

“That’s why she has done drugs and why this wedding happened too. We’re all depressed in our family.”


So I'd suggest there's some underlying mental health issues there

[E24man]

TTwiggy said:

Heroin is not and will never be a party drug.

This is where your argument ultimately fails. AFAIK you are not God, nor have you a dependable crystal ball so this statement and any premise that hangs on it is wrong.

Read the link to the blogger who wrote about his heroin party weekend with an unknown-to-him Peaches Geldof in LA and then tell me it is not a Party drug

TTwiggy said:

Maybe take a look at this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/...

And let me know how you feel about alcohol?

Edited by TTwiggy on Thursday 24th July 14:39

I feel fine about alcohol because the one thing that chart is missing from its component make up is the volume weighting given to the amount of alcohol consumed in comparison to the other drugs. Distill the sheer volume of alcohol consumed peacefully into that chart and the numbers would portray a vastly different picture.

Lies, damned lies and statistics if I recall the quote correctly.

You obviously have a vastly different point of view on the legalisation of drugs and the potential risks to the community than I have. It does appear you are using a crystal ball to declare that heroin isn't and won't be a Party drug despite direct evidence to the contrary concerning the woman who is subject of this thread.

How about you address the other points I made about there still being a market for the criminals with unregistered addicts and new starters once you have declared heroin legal?

[loose cannon]

People that listen to dance music take MDMA , cannabis
People that go to the pub lots take cocaine
People that love heavy metal and rock generally are your heroin fans
That's what I have found in my experience

[E24man]

BJG1 said:

I think she alludes to her mother's death causing mental health issues here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9652...

pertinently, stating that she didn't grieve for her mother until she was 16

She also described her favourite musician thusly:

“He speaks as someone who understands ­depression and drug abuse, someone who lives with it every day, sarcastically praising his sober and mostly happy friends for their failed mission to save him from something they could never understand.”

and here's what her sister said in 2009

“She’s got problems just like all of us have about what happened to my mum,” Pixie says of her older sister.

“I’ve been in therapy not long ago and she has had a hard time.

“That’s why she has done drugs and why this wedding happened too. We’re all depressed in our family.”


So I'd suggest there's some underlying mental health issues there

Nothing diagnoised then? Just your suspicions? Was anything mentioned in the Coroners Court where the Professionals involved in the case set out and discuss any factors that might have contributed to the circumstances surrounding her sudden death?

No.

So perhaps just a heroin addict who overdosed on heroin.

[E24man]

loose cannon said:

People that listen to dance music take MDMA , cannabis
People that go to the pub lots take cocaine
People that love heavy metal and rock generally are your heroin fans
That's what I have found in my experience

But what about if you go to the Theatre? Or you like Jazz? Or heaven forbid, Country and Western?

An incomplete list leads to just too many questions

[TTwiggy]

E24man said:

TTwiggy said:

Heroin is not and will never be a party drug.

This is where your argument ultimately fails. AFAIK you are not God, nor have you a dependable crystal ball so this statement and any premise that hangs on it is wrong.

Read the link to the blogger who wrote about his heroin party weekend with an unknown-to-him Peaches Geldof in LA and then tell me it is not a Party drug

TTwiggy said:

Maybe take a look at this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/...

And let me know how you feel about alcohol?

Edited by TTwiggy on Thursday 24th July 14:39

I feel fine about alcohol because the one thing that chart is missing from its component make up is the volume weighting given to the amount of alcohol consumed in comparison to the other drugs. Distill the sheer volume of alcohol consumed peacefully into that chart and the numbers would portray a vastly different picture.

Lies, damned lies and statistics if I recall the quote correctly.

You obviously have a vastly different point of view on the legalisation of drugs and the potential risks to the community than I have. It does appear you are using a crystal ball to declare that heroin isn't and won't be a Party drug despite direct evidence to the contrary concerning the woman who is subject of this thread.

How about you address the other points I made about there still being a market for the criminals with unregistered addicts and new starters once you have declared heroin legal?

You seem very unwilling to engage with any views contrary to yours, so I don't really feel it's fair of you to insist I answer all your points.

Let's go back to alcohol though. That chart that you dismissed 'lies, damned lies and statistics' was compiled by a rather eminent scientist. It doesn't exist in isolation however, and most charts which rank the 'harm' levels of drugs consistently rank alcohol in the top 3. This is simply down to the two factors used to rank harm - the issues the drug poses to the user, and the societal issues relating to the drug. Alcohol is bad on both these counts. Not bad because it's readily available, just bad because it's bad. You can dismiss this if you like, but you'll be wrong. Alcohol, by the way, always ranks above heroin on the harm scale.

That one isolated case of a star-struck kid who was going over to Peaches' place to take heroin is not indicative of its use as a party drug. A heroin party would be a uniquely down beat event, as most people there would be asleep.

As to your assertion that criminals would still supply, you're correct, I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have logic and an historic example (yep, it's alcohol again!). During prohibition in the US, organised crime went through the roof. When alcohol was legalised, those criminals had to move on to drugs, prostitution and illegal gambling. There was no market for their hookey booze anymore. To assume it won't be the same with other drugs is naive. As an example, do you think many pubs would swap you a pint of beer for a car stereo with the wires hanging out the back?

But I will agree that controlled distribution of heroin to registered addicts is a flawed idea. I'd go further and just make it available over the counter. If I'm adult enough to drink, I'm adult enough to decide what else I take. I realise however – due in part to attitudes like yours – that this is unlikely to happen. In the meantime however, we need a new approach, as the current one ain't working and its costing a fortune in money and lives.

[Halb]

Portugal legalised everything. Did heroin become a party drug there?

[BJG1]

Halb said:

Portugal legalised everything. Did heroin become a party drug there?

Decriminalised.

[KFC]

BJG1 said:

Halb said:

Portugal legalised everything. Did heroin become a party drug there?

Decriminalised.

I live in portugal. If you get caught with small quantities of anything at all, you won't be arrested. I think you can be sent for some sort of medical checkup though.

I haven't been invited to any heroin parties. Like every major tourist resort (decriminalised or not) drugs are freely available, if you want them.