Peaches Geldof found dead.
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
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.
Not at all, I'm happy to keep contesting your points but it does appear we have differing opinionsTTwiggy said:
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.
Can alcohol kill you in one administration as commonly as heroin can? No. There is an inherent danger in heroin that will not be obviated by legalising the drug.TTwiggy said:
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.
Is this your crystal ball at work again? How on earth can any of your arguments stand up if you keep interjecting with stuff like this? Read the article. He wasn't star-struck, he didn't know who she was. Occurences like this heroin party episode appear to be fairly commonplace if you have the knowledge, money and no fear of conviction.TTwiggy said:
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?
Once again - you can't compare the legalisation of heroin with the repeal of Prohibition..... unless you advocating the complete legalisation and freedom of access to heroin for all over 18/21. The reason U.S. criminals had to move on to other sources of income was because all prohibition was repealed - there was free access to all over 18/21. The only way to repicate those circumstances in the UK is the free and unfettered access for all to heroin - then the criminals would have nothing to trade with. As I explained earlier, any (may I repeat it, any) half-way house gives the criminal element a supply avenue to engage with.TTwiggy said:
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.
This is the trick - start applying your ideological ideas to flawed human beings, and just like communism you will see that the inherent design flaws in human beings mean the ideologys stay just that - there just isn't a practical way to apply what it is you seem to want; unfettered access for all to heroin that isn't damaging to the public health in general and removal of the criminal aspect in the distribution of the drug.Giving unfettered access removes the criminal aspect but the public health will undoubtedly suffer, as the common sense that was spoken of years ago seems distinctly uncommon now.
Any halfway house still gives the criminals a niche to fill and damage to be done.
KFC said:
BJG1 said:
Halb said:
Portugal legalised everything. Did heroin become a party drug there?
Decriminalised.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.
E24man said:
I haven't been to Portugal but I suspect comparing their drug taking attitudes to English drug taking attitudes is a little like comparing French drinking habits to English drinking habits.......
I don't think there is much difference between Portuguese and Brits. Loads of the portuguese I know like a line or two in the pub, and they're always smoking weed too.TTwiggy said:
So, if I proffer an opinion I'm 'crystal ball gazing'. If I offer evidence it's 'damned lies'.
Maybe you could answer a question for me? What right does a third party (like a government) have to tell me what I can ingest?
An alternate question; what responsibility does the government have to ensure that products for sale to the public are safe for consumption?Maybe you could answer a question for me? What right does a third party (like a government) have to tell me what I can ingest?
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
Things have certainly changed then, Heavy Metal fans always liked speed.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
Heroin people don't care for a particular style of music, they don't care about a certain fashion, they only care about heroin. Heroin is not a recreational drug, by the time you're injecting yourself in a public toilet you're long past the fun stage.
KFC said:
E24man said:
I haven't been to Portugal but I suspect comparing their drug taking attitudes to English drug taking attitudes is a little like comparing French drinking habits to English drinking habits.......
I don't think there is much difference between Portuguese and Brits. Loads of the portuguese I know like a line or two in the pub, and they're always smoking weed too.E24man said:
As I said, I don't know the Portuguese so will defer to your local knowledge but as regards 'a line or two in the pub', could you ever see this happening in a busy English town or city on a Friday night?
Absolutely. Have you ever been in a busy pub on a friday night in a city centre.... do you think the queue for the cubicles is that long because everyone has constipation or dioreah?E24man said:
Can alcohol kill you in one administration as commonly as heroin can? No. There is an inherent danger in heroin that will not be obviated by legalising the drug.
That's a pretty skewed way of looking at it given the added risk of OD due to the variable strength of street drugs and the added risk of toxic adulterants used by dealers to dilute it; alcohol for sale in the UK must meet standards, if bathtub alcohol was on sale as in prohibition USA people would be dying of poor quality alcohol, methanol poisoning, etc.There are cases of people dying of acute alcohol poisoning. It's not common but it does happen; the stats suggest there's about 2 deaths per week in the UK, although as the data does not distinguish deaths from occupational exposure to alcohol so I accept the true figure may be lower.
E24man said:
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.
Yes, humans who suffer from organised crime. This area isn't merely 'related', it's dominated by it. Nearly all heroin in the world comes from Afghanistan, and guess which groups that nearly solely funds. One's 'Al', and the other, 'Tal'. E24man said:
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.
Not at all. Treating it as a health problem rather than criminal would help shift demand from criminals, for example. E24man said:
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?
We'd be better not having billions of pounds going to the most dangerous people in society / the world. E24man said:
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.
I don't agree there's a very high risk of death from an overdose (when you consider the frequency of use vs deaths). Most users die from long-term misuse and ancillary health problems, or from when it's been mixed with something it shouldn't be e.g. rat poison / brick dust. E24man said:
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.
I know they are not the same (and didn't say so, did I?), but it's perfectly valid to draw comparisons and speculate over the overall harm each substance has on society. We accept the benefits alcohol brings over the harm, so why not other substances where the benefits / harm is comparable? I don't recall actually saying heroin should be legalised, what I said was:
La Liga said:
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.
How can you disagree with that when we have an incohesive classification system, and legal drugs more harmful than ones which are criminal to possess? If you legalised less harmful drugs, then you could spend the revenue on focusing on prohibiting the more harmful ones.
E24man said:
AFAIK you are not God
Which cuts both ways from a philosophical point of view. Who are you or anyone else to tell someone what they can and cannot put in their body? Why do you think you know what's best for someone else? TTwiggy said:
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.
Absolutely. Various 'scale of harm' analysis has shown alcohol to be one of the worst drugs for people and society. Yet because we've always known it to be legal, it's OK. It doesn't matter the highest % of our prison population is violent crime, of which half is linked to alcohol. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff