Would the legalisation of Heroin be good for society as a whole?

guildofevil

I have posted this as a test case, for a logical argument, which could be applied, with varying degrees of suitability, to other issues also.

I have chosen heroin as the subject, because it is a well know social I'll and because, most people will agree, that taking heroin is bad for the individual concerned, outside of very special circumstances, like a hospice situation.

My argument is not based on a platform of personal freedom. Such an argument could be made, but I am not attempting to make it here, as I believe it would simply muddy the waters.

My argument is that, as a simple, pragmatic decision, a correctly implemented legalization of heroin, along with strict controls, would be good for our society as a whole.

My logic goes something like this:

Heroin is a dangerous and highly addictive substance, which is currently controlled by criminal gangs.

When a substance is prohibited, the price increases to many multiples of it's natural market value.

The illicit heroin trade is very lucrative and as a result, these gangs are quite willing to commit any crime to protect their interests, including murdering each other, or anyone else they see as a threat.

A heroin habit is very expensive to maintain and because of this, addicts commit crime to get money to pay for it.

Most heroin addicts do not want to be addicted to the drug, but have been caught in a cycle of drugs and crime, where ignorance, fear of dealers and fear of withdrawal keep them in the life. In most cases this is through their own poor decisions, but I do not propose we make value judgements, or decide whether they should be punished or pitied. I see this as irrelevant, as my proposal is to make the situation better, for society as a whole, not to moralise, or empathise with the individuals concerned. This is pragmatism, not some woolly-headed notion about the poor victims of the scourge of heroin.

The heroin available on the streets varies greatly in quality, so it can range from being too pure, down to being cut with rat poison. Our health service ends up having to deal with the fallout from this.

The legalization I envisage would go something like this:

Heroin becomes legalized, in the same way as firearms are, in the republic of Ireland. You can apply for a licence to use heroin. Your identity and age, etc., are checked and after the inevitable bureaucratic delay of a couple of weeks, the licence is issued and you can go to a government run clinic, to get your medical grade heroin, along with clean needles, etc.

Regular medical check-up's would be mandatory, as would meeting with a councillor to discuss your situation and the options open to you.

The advantages of this approach are as follows:

The price of heroin at the government centres would be a fraction of that on the street, and the quality would be consistent. This is what would bring the addicts into the system.

The criminal gangs would loose their market and therefore their control of the trade.

The consistent quality of the drug would mean fewer overdoses and poisonings due to impurities, thus fewer hospital admissions of heroin addicts.

The lower price of the heroin would mean that the addicts would not have to commit crime to support their habit, thus, less crime in our society and fewer people taking up expensive places in our prisons.

The dual approach of medical screenings and counselling will encourage addicts to enter detox programmes, as they will be told what the drug will do, or already has done, to their bodies and what they can do about it, at the point where they are getting the drug.

I believe that this approach would, in time, reduce the number of heroin addicts in our society, help prevent new addicts from entering the life out of ignorance, drastically reduce crime in our society and save us money and/or free up resources, in our hospitals, prisons and Garda services.

Zombrex

A number of major flaws in that argument

1 - For the price of heroin to go down if it was made legal the number of users would have to increase dramatically. No company is going to start up a company to not make a profit, they either sell heroin at high cost to a small user base, or low cost to a large user base. Look at cigeretts

2 - It is quite hard to be a functioning heroin addict, which is why a lot of them end up homeless. It is hard to hold down a job while on heroin. This means that addicts will still be short of money, yet still strongly desire the drug. There is little reason that drug addict crime would go down, in fact with the huge increase in heroin addicts that legalisation would bring this number would probably sky rocket.

3 - While many addicts don't want to be addicted they still want to take the drug, and will end up being addicted. Otherwise no one would get addicted in the first place. Legalisation would do little to prevent addiction, and with no legal reason not to take heroin the addiction rate woudl likely sky rocket

4 - The cost of providing health care and counciling to all addicted heroin addicts under a legal heroin system would be huge. The cost of providing this for smokers is already very high, and the health risks of heroin abuse are much greater. If this cost was offset by taxing the heroin companies that would ultimately cause a massive price hike, effecting the need to commite crime for a fix.

5 - Most deaths with heroin are not due to impurities, they are due to overdoeses. Bascially the person is too high to realise what they are doing so they overdoes. Also heroin addiction will lead eventually to death even if the person does not overdoes. There is no safe way to consume heroin, eventually it will cause enough health problems that the person dies.

6 - It is paradoxical to suggest that if we legalise heroin we can then get everyone to enter detox programs and get off heroin. We can do that without legalising heroin, and having the drug illegal makes it much harder to obtain. Imagine if you could buy grade A herion in your news agents or supermarket? How many people would stay on the wagon then?

pH

Why cannot someone (say Bill Gates) who has the means, not legally use heroin if they make a decision to do so?

Anyone got any reasonable argument as to why in the privacy of his own home he shouldn't be allowed shoot up?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Why cannot someone (say Bill Gates) who has the means, not legally use heroin if they make a decision to do so?

Anyone got any reasonable argument as to why in the privacy of his own home he shouldn't be allowed shoot up?

Is there a reasonable argument as to why Bill Gates cannot sit in the privacy of his own home a saw his legs off? Or slowly drill a hole in his head until his brain explodes? Or let someone eat him alive?

It depends on a persons opinion as to the states responsibility to attempt to prevent self harm.

pH

2 - It is quite hard to be a functioning heroin addict, which is why a lot of them end up homeless. It is hard to hold down a job while on heroin. This means that addicts will still be short of money, yet still strongly desire the drug. There is little reason that drug addict crime would go down, in fact with the huge increase in heroin addicts that legalisation would bring this number would probably sky rocket.

There just isn't any evidence to support this. There are not a huge number of people out there saying 'If only heroin was legal I'd love some'. Those with lives miserable enough to seek solace in the drug can already get it (from criminals). Potentially the number may increase a small amount, but there is no evidence that a huge number of people would like to spend their life high 'if only it was legal'.

3 - While many addicts don't want to be addicted they still want to take the drug, and will end up being addicted. Otherwise no one would get addicted in the first place. Legalisation would do little to prevent addiction, and with no legal reason not to take heroin the addiction rate woudl likely sky rocket

Yes it would.

Imagine a system - if you attend a clinic twice (one week apart) and test positive for heroin, then the state would supply you with heroin for as long as you wanted it.

It's clean, you get new needles and known dosages. The addict doesn't need to break into someone's house to get their stereo. He has regular exposure to the medical profession, for advice on giving up.

But what it really does is kill the drug pushers dead! If a dealer at most get a week's sales from an addict then the pusher has no real business. No regular customers to leech off until they die a miserable death. Just 'hard sales' first timers. Pushers should all but disappear. Also the police aren't chasing addicts and all those drug related crimes, they can really target the dealers (if any are left)

Yes some news addicts are created when they get access to a friend's stash, but the whole criminal underworld associated with heroin dies overnight.

4 - The cost of providing health care and counciling to all addicted heroin addicts under a legal heroin system would be huge. The cost of providing this for smokers is already very high, and the health risks of heroin abuse are much greater. If this cost was offset by taxing the heroin companies that would ultimately cause a massive price hike, effecting the need to commite crime for a fix.

Yes but we do it because we're decent human beings, who accept others make stupid decisions *but still* help them in their hour of need.

5 - Most deaths with heroin are not due to impurities, they are due to overdoeses. Bascially the person is too high to realise what they are doing so they overdoes. Also heroin addiction will lead eventually to death even if the person does not overdoes. There is no safe way to consume heroin, eventually it will cause enough health problems that the person dies.

There are *safer* ways to consume heroin, clean needles, no impurities, known dosages and regular access to health professionals.

6 - It is paradoxical to suggest that if we legalise heroin we can then get everyone to enter detox programs and get off heroin. We can do that without legalising heroin, and having the drug illegal makes it much harder to obtain. Imagine if you could buy grade A herion in your news agents or supermarket? How many people would stay on the wagon then?

That is a myth, heroin is as easy at it needs to be to obtain at the moment. Smack addicts are hardly the most 'together' people in the world, and they manage to find a dealer once a day.

Heroin in newsagents is probably a bad idea (but then again so would Uzis and plutonium) However the possession of heroin for personal use should be legal, so also should be a means of obtaining it with medical supervision.

guildofevil

Wicknight wrote:

1 - For the price of heroin to go down if it was made legal the number of users would have to increase dramatically. No company is going to start up a company to not make a profit, they either sell heroin at high cost to a small user base, or low cost to a large user base. Look at cigeretts

No. The production of heroin is actually quite cheap. It is the prohibition of it which introduces extra costs, pushing up the price.

Who said anything about a company running it for profit? I am talking about a government monopoly. This is a controlled substance it should remain heavily controlled (or become controlled, if you are going to be realistic about it).

Wicknight wrote:

2 - It is quite hard to be a functioning heroin addict, which is why a lot of them end up homeless. It is hard to hold down a job while on heroin. This means that addicts will still be short of money, yet still strongly desire the drug. There is little reason that drug addict crime would go down, in fact with the huge increase in heroin addicts that legalisation would bring this number would probably sky rocket.

Depends on the cost doesn't it?
Even less money required would mean less crime.
If you really want to cut out the associated crime, I suppose you could make it free but rationed. I believe the cost would be offset by savings in other areas of our society.
The plan isn't set in stone. I'm open to suggestions here.

Wicknight wrote:

3 - While many addicts don't want to be addicted they still want to take the drug, and will end up being addicted. Otherwise no one would get addicted in the first place. Legalisation would do little to prevent addiction, and with no legal reason not to take heroin the addiction rate woudl likely sky rocket.

I disagree.
Most people start by trying it, “just once”. The ubiquitous free hit from a pusher, who downplays the risk of addiction. “A shir ya don't believe all that ****e do ya?” Sounds like a stupid argument, but how stupid do you have to be to even consider starting on heroin in the fist place?

Legalization would make selling heroin illegally unprofitable. Without a profitable business, the pushers would not be attempting to drum up new custom. What would the point be, if, as soon as the person is addicted, they can get it for a fraction of the price, or possibly free, from a government centre? Add to this the fact that dealers would still be subject to prosecution, customs would still seize illegally imported heroin, and prosecute the smugglers, etc. It is important to make sure that the Illicit heroin trade becomes unworkable, form an economic standpoint. That is they key.

As to the legal reasons not to take heroin. Well that works really well doesn't it?
No one who wants to take heroin has ever been stopped by the fact that it's Illegal. If you're not afraid of addiction, HIV, Hepetitis, etc. The threat of jail certainly isn't going to stop you.

Wicknight wrote:

4 - The cost of providing health care and counciling to all addicted heroin addicts under a legal heroin system would be huge. The cost of providing this for smokers is already very high, and the health risks of heroin abuse are much greater. If this cost was offset by taxing the heroin companies that would ultimately cause a massive price hike, effecting the need to commite crime for a fix.

We are already paying that cost. Or are you under the impression that your average junky in A&E with an overdose is on VHI?

Wicknight wrote:

5 - Most deaths with heroin are not due to impurities, they are due to overdoeses. Bascially the person is too high to realise what they are doing so they overdoes. Also heroin addiction will lead eventually to death even if the person does not overdoes. There is no safe way to consume heroin, eventually it will cause enough health problems that the person dies.

Some deaths are due to impurities, some due to inconsistent purity, leading to overdoes (basically, the junky gets his hands on much better stuff than he is used to and uses too much) and some due to accidental overdose, as you suggest. Heroin addicts die. That is a fact of life. Too bad for them. They assume the risk when they spike their vein.
At least we can make sure they know the risks because you're average pusher is certainly not going to try to impress them on them.

Wicknight wrote:

6 - It is paradoxical to suggest that if we legalise heroin we can then get everyone to enter detox programs and get off heroin. We can do that without legalising heroin, and having the drug illegal makes it much harder to obtain. Imagine if you could buy grade A herion in your news agents or supermarket? How many people would stay on the wagon then?

I agree that it seems paradoxical and I'm not suggesting that everyone will enter detox programs. Some will, some won't. And I am talking about strict controls, not popping down to the local Spar for a pack of cigs and a wrap of smack. Please read the OP more carefully.

This is a numbers game, not a cure for heroin addiction. What I am talking about is recognising that this is a problem in our society and trying to minimise it's impact as much as possible. Prohibition has consistently failed to do that.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

If a dealer at most get a week's sales from an addict then the pusher has no real business. No regular customers to leech off until they die a miserable death. Just 'hard sales' first timers. Pushers should all but disappear. Also the police aren't chasing addicts and all those drug related crimes, they can really target the dealers (if any are left)

Ok, I'm not quite sure if I follow this.

Your plan is to let the dealers first get everyone addicted to heroin. Once everyone is addicted to heroin you give out free heroin to those already addicted. This effectively removes the entire dealer customer base, since everyone who wants it is now addicted and getting free heroin from the state. With no regular customers, and no new customers (since everyone is already addicted to heroin and getting it free from the state), the dealers will disappear.

A number of problems with this.

1 For the customer base of the drug dealers to be erroded you have to get EVERYONE addicted to heroin. Anyone, at any potential time, that may buy heroin has from a dealer has to get addicted to it and get it free from the state. Otherwise the dealers will always have people to sell to.

2 That means you end up with a huge heroin problem being funded and sustained by the government. You can't get anyone off the heroin because that will provide potenital customers for the drug dealers. To stop someone coming off and then going back to the dealers you have to get everyone on it, otherwise they don't qualify for free heroin and will pay the dealers for this.

3 Funding this would cost a small fortune. Actually it would cost a huge fortune.

pH wrote:

Yes some news addicts are created when they get access to a friend's stash, but the whole criminal underworld associated with heroin dies overnight.

Yes but you are then left with a population of cronic heroin addicts. Not exactly ideal.

pH wrote:

Yes but we do it because we're decent human beings, who accept others make stupid decisions *but still* help them in their hour of need.

I've no problem helping a drug addict. I just don't see giving him an unlimited supply of free drugs as "helping" And no matter how much we want to help people, things cost money. Funding the drug habits of a cronic heroin population would be very very expensive. And that is before the cost of the medical attention the junkie population would need.

pH wrote:

There are *safer* ways to consume heroin, clean needles, no impurities, known dosages and regular access to health professionals.

None of those will stop the heroin damaging the body, or the addiction. There is no safe level of heroin that still produces the effect desired by the junkies.

pH wrote:

That is a myth, heroin is as easy at it needs to be to obtain at the moment.

That is ridiculous. I've no idea how to get heroin. Neither does my mother. I would not even know who to ask. I could drive around Ballymun for an hour looking for a drug dealer but I would probably be too scared of getting mugged.

Getting heroin is only easy if you already know how to get heroin, if you live in a bad area frequented by drug dealers, or know people who know people, or know junkies. That is the reason heroin use is largely confined to inner city areas with bad repuations.

pH wrote:

Smack addicts are hardly the most 'together' people in the world, and they manage to find a dealer once a day.

Thats because they know exactly where to go and what to do. I know where to buy specialist photo equipment, or rare records. That doesn't mean its easy to find for someone who doesn't.

pH wrote:

However the possession of heroin for personal use should be legal, so also should be a means of obtaining it with medical supervision.

What do people mean when they "medical supervision"? Do you mean a doctor infects your heroin for you every 4 hours, and then monitors your vital signs to see if you are doing ok?

Or do you mean you go for a checkup every week? Why? What do the doctors do?

Are you saying that the doctor can just go "Now Billy you have had too much heroin, no more for you". You think that would work on a heroin addict? "Oh ok doc, I'm glad you were here to supervise my heroin use, but now its getting dangerious I think I'll just stop"

That would never work. Regular health inspections are pointless. All the doctor can do is say "this heorin is harming your body". Well duh! If the doctor stops the free treatment of heroin the junkie is just going to go back to the illegal dealers.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, I'm not quite sure if I follow this.

A number of problems with this.

1 For the customer base of the drug dealers to be erroded you have to get EVERYONE addicted to heroin. Anyone, at any potential time, that may buy heroin has from a dealer has to get addicted to it and get it free from the state. Otherwise the dealers will always have people to sell to.

Not at all. A new first-time customer (non addict) is a much harder sale. As you point out they have to find a dealer, figure out what they want and buy the stuff. 99% of a dealer's sales are to drug addicts, first time users represent a tiny fraction of his business.

The only people that dealers will be able to sell to is those trying heroin for the first time. Yes that includes potentially every person in the state, but in practice is a very small market.

This means that the risk/reward for dealers will be tiny, there just is no business for their drugs so they'll stop selling.

Now with no dealers selling, the drug problem goes away, and we should see far less new addicts appearing.

2 That means you end up with a huge heroin problem being funded and sustained by the government. You can't get anyone off the heroin because that will provide potenital customers for the drug dealers. To stop someone coming off and then going back to the dealers you have to get everyone on it, otherwise they don't qualify for free heroin and will pay the dealers for this.

Heroin is not that expensive. The cost to provide addicts with clean drugs if much less than the overall cost of that addict currently to society in terms if health and policing.

3 Funding this would cost a small fortune. Actually it would cost a huge fortune.

No, it's cheaper than spending money trying to catch them and lock them up. Also the cost of crime to society (both in terms of stolen goods/muggings and rediverted police resources) is huge

Yes but you are then left with a population of cronic heroin addicts. Not exactly ideal.

Yes it's not ideal, however it's much better than what we have now. These people have access to clean drugs and medical care, and aren't mugging you and you family for your mobile phone or breaking into your house for your Mother's jewellery.

I've no problem helping a drug addict. I just don't see giving him an unlimited supply of free drugs as "helping" And no matter how much we want to help people, things cost money. Funding the drug habits of a cronic heroin population would be very very expensive. And that is before the cost of the medical attention the junkie population would need.

No it isn't, legal pure state-supplied heroin would actually be quite cheap. Look at the street price of heroin today, much of that price is an economic factor for the risks that the dealers are taking.

Call it an €80 a day habit, those drugs properly supplied are at most worth €10 (if they were legal). There are estimates based on per kilo prices of opium leaving Afghanistan that it is actually a fraction of that.

Given the poor value placed on stolen goods by fences, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the addict supports himself with €250 (retail value) of stolen goods per day (obviously much less if he can get cast).

When you add up the cost to society in terms of theft, policing, insurance, social fear an addict could easily be costing us €500+ per day. All this for €10 of heroin!

Zombrex

guildofevil wrote:

No. The production of heroin is actually quite cheap. It is the prohibition of it which introduces extra costs, pushing up the price.

If it would be expensive for the dealers it will be expensive for the government.

guildofevil wrote:

Who said anything about a company running it for profit? I am talking about a government monopoly. This is a controlled substance it should remain heavily controlled (or become controlled, if you are going to be realistic about it).

It is heavly controlled. You can get heroin if a doctor approves of it. Most doctors don't which is why you have an illegal drug trade.

guildofevil wrote:

If you really want to cut out the associated crime, I suppose you could make it free but rationed.

That won't cut out assorted crime. Heroin addiction is very strong. An addict is not going to wait a week until his next ration. He will get the heroin where ever he can

The only way to completely remove the market for drug dealers is to give anyone as much heroin as they want for free.

guildofevil wrote:

I believe the cost would be offset by savings in other areas of our society.

Why? While the drug trade makes the headlines the crime it creates is relatively small in comparison to other areas

guildofevil wrote:

What would the point be, if, as soon as the person is addicted, they can get it for a fraction of the price, or possibly free, from a government centre?

People don't start taking heroin because they are tricked into it by unscrupious drug dealers. They start taking heroin because they want to get high.

Now what do you think is more off pointing for say an 18 year old college student stressed out by exams. Having to drive out to a dodgy area of town, cruising around late a night looking for a drug dealer, and then going up to him and trying to buy drugs, something you've never done before and have no idea how to do, off a quite scary individual.

Or popping into your local pharmacy and picking up some heroin along with a foot spray

guildofevil wrote:

It is important to make sure that the Illicit heroin trade becomes unworkable, form an economic standpoint. That is they key.

True, but you seem to be willing to get everyone addicted to heroin to make this happen. Which is kinda missing the point.

guildofevil wrote:

No one who wants to take heroin has ever been stopped by the fact that it's Illegal.

Thats like saying that no one who has ever crashed their car at 150 miles an hour on the motor way has been stopped by the fact that we have speed limits. Speed limits are therefore pointless.

Those idiots haven't, but a hell of a lot of other people have, those are the ones that obeyed the speed limit and didn't wrap their cars around a tree at 150 miles an hour.

guildofevil wrote:

We are already paying that cost. Or are you under the impression that your average junky in A&E with an overdose is on VHI?

That cost won't go away.

You want to pay for all his necessary medical expensise due to long term heroin addiction AND you want to pay for his heroin.

The costs will increase because now you are not only paying for herion off the health service, you are undoubtably going to increase the number of people who are using heroin by a large amount.

guildofevil wrote:

Heroin addicts die. That is a fact of life. Too bad for them. They assume the risk when they spike their vein.

That has never been a deterent. Smokers die. That doesn't stop thousands of people taking up smoking very single year.

Imagine what it would be like if the state payed for your cigeretts

guildofevil wrote:

At least we can make sure they know the risks because you're average pusher is certainly not going to try to impress them on them.

People have never payed attention to the risks. Why woudl they start because the government prints a warning label on their heroin bottle?

guildofevil wrote:

And I am talking about strict controls, not popping down to the local Spar for a pack of cigs and a wrap of smack. Please read the OP more carefully.

Stick controls are pointless if your over all aim is to limit illegal trade. If a heroin addict cannot get his heroin when he needs it of the state he will go to an illegal dealer. Heroin addicts going through withdrawl are not exactly the most reasoned folks.

The only way this would work to elimate trade is if the state gave easy unlimited access to heroin.

guildofevil wrote:

What I am talking about is recognising that this is a problem in our society and trying to minimise it's impact as much as possible.

You are no minimising the impact, you are starting a state funded free addiction program. Under you plan anyone could get as much heroin as they like off the state.

You are working on the assumption that most people are too clever and aware to try heroin, even if it is just sitting their freely available to them with no legal consequences for taking it.

Would that fact that lots of people are happy to pay for heroin when there are serious legal consequences not suggest that if you remove these consequences and make it perfectly ok to take heroin a lot more people will take heroin?

I mean if people were sensible and rational and didn't do things that harm them in the first place we wouldn't have a problem. No one would smoke for a start, or use cocane or take heroin.

guildofevil wrote:

Prohibition has consistently failed to do that.

Prohibition limits the number of people taking the drug. Just like the speed limit limits the number of people doing 150 down the motorway. Some people will take heroin, some people will speed while drunk, no system is perfect.

But if you were to say "Ok everyone there is no speed limit, but we would like you all to drive sensible" do you think there would be more or less car crashes on the motor ways each day?

You don't think anyone who normally wouldn't speed would start to speed because no one is telling them they can't?

On the one hand you are saying that we clearly have a heroin problem, a lot of people are clearly stupid or desperate enough to want to take heroin. On the other hand you are saying that we should make heroin freely available but it is ok because you trust that most people aren't stupid or desperate enough to want to take heroin.

Can you see the problem in that?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

This means that the risk/reward for dealers will be tiny, there just is no business for their drugs so they'll stop selling.

Only after everyone is already addicted to heroin.

The reason drug dealers sell to repeat users is because that is easy. But if they stop coming they will just try harder to sell to new users. And clearly they do sell to new users, because heroin kills you after a few years yet we still have a heroin problem in this country. There will always be new users.

The dealers business might take a hit, but there is no reason to believe it will completely disappear. They are just going to start pushing drugs on EVERYONE. To stay in business the dealers would have to be constantly finding new buyers. Saturate an area and then move on, just like a lot of other businesses do. Over night your addicted population sky rockets. And with the promise of free heroin for the rest of your life paid for by the state once you pay the dealer €50, why wouldn't anyone sign up for that? In fact the dealers would probably charge what they want, €500,€1000 per bag, since once you are hooked you get it for free anyway.

guildofevil

Wicknight wrote:

Your plan is to let the dealers first get everyone addicted to heroin.

No. The dealers have already done the damage. I'm trying to break the cycle and stop them doing any more, by taking their means of making money away.

Wicknight wrote:

For the customer base of the drug dealers to be erroded you have to get EVERYONE addicted to heroin.

What? How do you come up with that one? That does NOT follow.
There are a limited number of people, in any society, who are stupid enough to take heroin in the first place. They and only they, will become heroin addicts regardless of whether it is legal or not.
I'm not going to take heroin even if it is legal and free. Are you?
We would not wind up with a population full of heroin addicts, unless we first reduce the average IQ of the population by 70 points!

Wicknight wrote:

That is ridiculous. I've no idea how to get heroin. Neither does my mother. I would not even know who to ask. I could drive around Ballymun for an hour looking for a drug dealer but I would probably be too scared of getting mugged.

If you really wanted it, you would find it and the risk of getting mugged would be the least of your worries.

Do you want to buy Heroin? Does your mother? Would you if it was legal? Would she?

If being afraid of getting mugged is enough to stop you, then fear of addiction, HIV, etc. would probably stop you to. You will never become a heroin addict, regardless of it's legal standing, because you're not a complete idiot.

And you don't have to go to Ballymun to get it. Ever been into town? You could find it tonight if you look hard enough.

Wicknight wrote:

That would never work. Regular health inspections are pointless. All the doctor can do is say "this heorin is harming your body". Well duh! If the doctor stops the free treatment of heroin the junkie is just going to go back to the illegal dealers.

How about. “Well Kev, you have several collapsed veins and that constipation just isn't going to go away. While you're on that stuff. You don't have HIV yet, but it's only a matter time the way you're going. You know we could get you into a detox programme if you want to get off that sh1te. Let me explain to you about withdrawal. Now I know the horror stories those dealers tell, about the nightmares of withdrawal, and I won't sugar coat it, it is nasty, but we can help you with that. We have drugs to help bring you down gently. We have a centre to take care of you while you come down... Not interested? Ok. Maybe you'll change your mind after the next bout of blood poisoning. Here's your note to say you've seen me.”

And I never said that the doctor could refuse him, or had anything to do with administering the drug. Nor do I believe any medical professional should have anything to do with administering it. No. If you want to be a junky, that is your choice and you should have to spike your own vein.

The only reason for the medical check-ups is to tell the user the harm he is doing as he is doing it and encourage him to quit.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

The reason drug dealers sell to repeat users is because that is easy. But if they stop coming they will just try harder to sell to new users.

That's not how things work. People aren't dealing because "They follow in their father's footsteps", or they somehow decide that they are a dealer and that's what they do for a living, they do it to make money. Lots of money. If you can't make enough money to justify the risk of spending substantial time in prison then they'll just not do it.

Trying to actively seek out new potential customers and convince them to try this hugely expensive drug (it needs to be because they have no regular customers) is not going to be worth it ever for a dealer. The risks are huge, the rewards tiny.

The massive majority of addicts get into drugs via another addict. Their friends use, they are around them, their first fixes will always be from a friend's stash and gear (usually paid for of course).

People who are not addicts just don't decide to try heroin and go out and find a dealer.

And clearly they do sell to new users, because heroin kills you after a few years yet we still have a heroin problem in this country. There will always be new users.

yes they will gateway in from other addicts. However making the drug available in small regular doses (never a huge excess to share) and making it available in non snortable/smokable forms will reduce the number of friends that addicts gateway in.

The dealers business might take a hit, but there is no reason to believe it will completely disappear. They are just going to start pushing drugs on EVERYONE.

This is being silly. If they could make enough money to justify the risk then they'd be doing it today. They aren't.

To stay in business the dealers would have to be constantly finding new buyers. Saturate an area and then move on, just like a lot of other businesses do. Over night your addicted population sky rockets. And with the promise of free heroin for the rest of your life paid for by the state once you pay the dealer €50, why wouldn't anyone sign up for that? In fact the dealers would probably charge what they want, €500,€1000 per bag, since once you are hooked you get it for free anyway.

There is no evidence that a large number of people would love to spend their life high 'if only it was legal'. People in poor social conditions with crap prospects use drugs - because it makes great sense, as much sense to them as not using means to you.

Whether you believe it or not, your life can suck so bad that drugs do make sense. These people are already heroin addicts.

Capt'n Midnight

Wicknight wrote:

A number of major flaws in that argument

1 - For the price of heroin to go down if it was made legal the number of users would have to increase dramatically. No company is going to start up a company to not make a profit, they either sell heroin at high cost to a small user base, or low cost to a large user base. Look at cigeretts

heroin is very cheap to produced, like cigarettes. It costs more to make the packet than the cigarettes inside. Most of the cost is TAX with a good chunk going to the retailer, who takes more in profit than the manufacturers gets gross.

Before all the fuss over drugs opium was available, but even then it was problematic, look at the opium wars. Legalising opium ain't much of an option due to the ease of coversion to Heroin.

The alternative is to have it prescription only.

"Brave new world" ?

Zombrex

guildofevil wrote:

No. The dealers have already done the damage. I'm trying to break the cycle and stop them doing any more, by taking their means of making money away.

If the state is getting everyone addicted to heroin, the "damage" is still taking place, only now it is more wider and totally legal. You are simply shifting the damage onto the state.

Also how does offering easily available legal cheap heroin "break the cycle"?

guildofevil wrote:

What? How do you come up with that one? That does NOT follow.
There are a limited number of people, in any society, who are stupid enough to take heroin in the first place.

No there clearly isn't, or if there is its fecking huge number.

If there were the drug dealers would be out of business long ago because everyone eventually dies or gets clean from heroin. A heroin addict has a limited life span, it is very hard to be a very long term herion user.

So there clearly is a constant stream of new users wanting to take up heroin every day. Otherwise the drug rates would be falling not rising (and if they were rising you wouldn't need to do this anyway), and the drug dealers would be out of business as their pool of customers eventually dies off.

Your plan simply speeds up the process of new addiction, makes it easier and legal to get addicted to heroin.

guildofevil wrote:

They and only they, will become heroin addicts regardless of whether it is legal or not.

What are you basing that on? You know that large populations in the suburbs won't become addicted to heroin if it is cheap, legal and freely available. What are these people just a lot smarter than the scumbags from the inner cities?

guildofevil wrote:

I'm not going to take heroin even if it is legal and free. Are you?

No, but I don't smoke or speed on the motor way. A lot of people do. A lot of people are dumb, illinformed, reckless or simply believe they will live forever. A lot of people make stupid decisions because they aren't thinking straight, and with heroin addiction you don't get a second change to undo that.

It is ridiculous to suggest that if it becomes a complete free for all that society will just magically work out how to restrain itself. That hasn't happened for any other area of society, people are still addicted to cigs, people are still getting fatter and fatter, people still speed and take stupid chances, people still use drugs and abuse their bodies.

guildofevil wrote:

We would not wind up with a population full of heroin addicts, unless we first reduce the average IQ of the population by 70 points!

By that logic anyone who smokes is either an idiot or wants to die of lung cancer.

guildofevil wrote:

No. If you want to be a junky, that is your choice and you should have to spike your own vein.

So then they don't have to have medical supervision. You are just giving anyone who wants them free drugs. Unlimited. Forever

guildofevil wrote:

The only reason for the medical check-ups is to tell the user the harm he is doing as he is doing it and encourage him to quit.

Yes because people love hearing that :rolleyes: You think any of the junkies will go to those, least of all act on the advice given there?

Doctor - "Heroin is really bad for you"

Junkie - "No ****, then why do you give it to me in unlimited amounts for free? Oh and can you refill this"

guildofevil

Wicknight wrote:

The reason drug dealers sell to repeat users is because that is easy.

Agreed. Repeat customers come and find them, making it easier and safer for the dealers to ply their trade.

Wicknight wrote:

And clearly they do sell to new users, because heroin kills you after a few years yet we still have a heroin problem in this country.

No, you can survive for many years on heroin. That is why it is so lucrative. Repeat custom.

Wicknight wrote:

They are just going to start pushing drugs on EVERYONE. To stay in business the dealers would have to be constantly finding new buyers.

So what if they try to sell it to everyone? Does that mean everyone if going to buy? No. It just makes them easier to catch.

Wicknight wrote:

Saturate an area and then move on, just like a lot of other businesses do.

So what if they saturate an area with heroin? If the addicts are given clean medical grade heroin for free, the market is already at saturation point, as far as they are concerned. Your average Joe Soap would sooner pluck his own eye out than take that carp, so where is the profit in it going to come from?

The dealers still have to get their heroin through customs, which means paying a major dealer, who has to pay a supplier, who has to pay a mule and the Taliban, or other drug lord in Afghanistan. All of these people expect, not only profit, but to get RICH!

What I am talking about is the government engaging in predatory pricing practices, in order to drive out the dealers.

This is economics used as a weapon against drug dealers.

Imagine if Tesco could, not only price your local shop out of the market, but send the cops around to arrest the owner and take all of his stock! That is what the government can do to drug dealers.

Sand

Id favour legalisation as the government could tax it and improve the exchequer returns. Would save policing time trying to save idiots from themselves too. I wouldnt be in favour of some mass outreach program for heroin users though - waste of cash. If they havent got the message that heroin is bad for you...well were not exactly dealing with rocket scientist convention.

It is ridiculous to suggest that if it becomes a complete free for all that society will just magically work out how to restrain itself. That hasn't happened for any other area of society, people are still addicted to cigs, people are still getting fatter and fatter, people still speed and take stupid chances, people still use drugs and abuse their bodies.

And still do, even when its illegal. Govt might as well turn a profit on it like they do with cigs and drinks and free up the police to protect those who value their own lives.

Sam Vimes

pH wrote:

Imagine a system - if you attend a clinic twice (one week apart) and test positive for heroin, then the state would supply you with heroin for as long as you wanted it.

they have this already, in england anyway. i read an interview with a woman who edits a magazine about drugs. she is a heroin addict. she went through loads of rehab and they didn't work because she is addicted. so she goes to the doctor to get exactly the right amount. enough to satisfy the cravings but not enough to knock her out

Wicknight wrote:

1 For the customer base of the drug dealers to be erroded you have to get EVERYONE addicted to heroin. Anyone, at any potential time, that may buy heroin has from a dealer has to get addicted to it and get it free from the state. Otherwise the dealers will always have people to sell to.

that's just silly. as with every product, heroin has a certain market size. heroin can be sold to people who want to get high, and only those people. in the same way you couldn't make everyone in the country buy a car, you can't make everyone take heroin.

Wicknight wrote:

I've no problem helping a drug addict. I just don't see giving him an unlimited supply of free drugs as "helping"

the person is addicted to the drugs. he needs them. if he doesn't get them from the government he'll get them from your granny's wallet. that's how its helping them

Wicknight wrote:

And no matter how much we want to help people, things cost money. Funding the drug habits of a cronic heroin population would be very very expensive. And that is before the cost of the medical attention the junkie population would need.

true, heroin will cost money but considerably less than it does on the streets. drug dealers put massive margins on the drugs because they can get away with it. there is no government regulation. a government buying a million tons a year will get a good price. also, all the money that is spent fighting drugs will be saved. the prison population will half (€90,000 a year to keep someone in prison by the way) and massive amounts of garda resources would not have to be spent. this money could be used to fund buying the heroin, which as we've explained, would be considerably cheaper in the first place

Wicknight wrote:

None of those will stop the heroin damaging the body, or the addiction. There is no safe level of heroin that still produces the effect desired by the junkies.

yes there is as is proved by the woman i mentioned at the top of this post. she gets enough to satisfy her cravings and no more because the dose is measured by a qualified doctor

Wicknight wrote:

That is ridiculous. I've no idea how to get heroin. Neither does my mother. I would not even know who to ask. I could drive around Ballymun for an hour looking for a drug dealer but I would probably be too scared of getting mugged.

and yet you say to stop drug dealers, everyone would have to become addicted. but you and your mother will never take it, no matter how strongly someone offers it to you. and i highly doubt you're alone in that feeling. as we've said, heroin has a set market size and cannot expand beyond it

Wicknight wrote:

If it would be expensive for the dealers it will be expensive for the government.

no, it won't. the expense comes from having to ship small amounts and hide it from customs and the vast number of people involved in shipping it from afghanistan etc and the fact that they are criminals and will take whatever money they can get away with charging. if the government was doing it legally in the open, it woul be no more expensive than coffee

Wicknight wrote:

It is heavly controlled. You can get heroin if a doctor approves of it. Most doctors don't which is why you have an illegal drug trade.

the point of this thread is that guildofevil wants to see that change so that its easier to get it legally. you've just admitted that would stop the illegal drug trade

Wicknight wrote:

That won't cut out assorted crime. Heroin addiction is very strong. An addict is not going to wait a week until his next ration. He will get the heroin where ever he can

so you don't make him wait a week. you give him enough to satisfy his cravings. that is the point of the thread

Wicknight wrote:

The only way to completely remove the market for drug dealers is to give anyone as much heroin as they want for free.

yes, that is true. that's what we're suggesting. if they want to kill themselves, who are we to stop them?

Wicknight wrote:

Why? While the drug trade makes the headlines the crime it creates is relatively small in comparison to other areas

emmm.. no its not. i'd go as far as to say the majority of crime, or at least organised crime, is drug related. 99% of the murders i see on tv are drug related anyway

here's a figure from america: the govt spent $19 billion in 2003 fighting drugs. if they used that money to buy and distribute drugs instead, well that'd be a lot of heroin to give to people to stop them robbing your granny
link:http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Wicknight wrote:

People don't start taking heroin because they are tricked into it by unscrupious drug dealers. They start taking heroin because they want to get high.

True, but you seem to be willing to get everyone addicted to heroin to make this happen. Which is kinda missing the point.

those two statements are contradictory. first you say people take heroin because they want to get high, then you say its possible to get everyone addicted, even those who don't want to get high. which is it?

Wicknight wrote:

People have never payed attention to the risks. Why woudl they start because the government prints a warning label on their heroin bottle?

well, they wouldn't. that's why it would be administered by a doctor and not freely available in a bottle

Wicknight wrote:

Stick controls are pointless if your over all aim is to limit illegal trade. If a heroin addict cannot get his heroin when he needs it of the state he will go to an illegal dealer.

then we make sure he can get it from the state

Wicknight wrote:

Heroin addicts going through withdrawl are not exactly the most reasoned folks.
The only way this would work to elimate trade is if the state gave easy unlimited access to heroin.

that's what we're suggesting. as with smoking, they can kill themselves if they want.

the government wouldn't encourage heroin use, it would only deal with those people who had already become addicted.

as you have admitted, a doctor administering as much heroin as an addict needed would eliminate the illegal drugs trade.

this is how it would work:

1. all current addicts would get as much heroin as they wanted for free

2. dealers would suddenly find that there was no market for their drugs because they had been undercut by the government

3. there would be no point offering it to new people because they'd only buy it once and then get it free from the government after that. and since no one can get their "first hit" from the government, there would be no new addictions

4. the problem would be solved


edit:here's the story i was talking about at the top of the post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm
that is an example of what we're talking about working perfectly

pH

Commander Vimes wrote:

this is how it would work:

1. all current addicts would get as much heroin as they wanted for free

2. dealers would suddenly find that there was no market for their drugs because they had been undercut by the government

3. there would be no new addictions because no one can get their "first hit" from the government and there's no money in a dealer giving it to someone

4. the problem would be solved

Agree in principal with all that (and the rest of the post - well said)

I'd like once again to add:
The heroin would be clean and of a known strength, the needles would not be shared, and the 'program for free heroin' would involve regular medical visits.

Some new addicts would gateway in from existing addicts (government supplied) drugs. If the heroin is supplied in a non-smokable/non-snortable form then this is minimised (the number of people who's first hit of heroin is via a needle is quite small)

The normal objections to this (sensible ones WN!):

• What about Cocaine/E/Cannabis, the dealers are going to exist for these unless you give them away too!
• We're going to have every addict in western Europe coming here for their free drugs. Doing this unilaterally in Ireland (without the UK in particular) could indeed cause problems

Edited to add:
Great bbc link! Blows away 2 of Wicknight's myths:
- Heroin (in itself) is dangerous (it's not just very addictive)
- Heroin addicts only last a few years (She's been an addict 20 years)

Sangre

Wicknight wrote:

If it would be expensive for the dealers it will be expensive for the government.

The increased cost of illegal heroin is due to smuggling, hidden production, transport, protection of operations and the occassional drug war. Not production. The government clearly wouldn't face these problems.

Also, you're ignoring the huge value gained from removing the criminal underworld in heroin production and the associated crimes of it.

Capt'n Midnight

I've heard it said that most of certain types of crime in Dublin, car stealing muggings, house breaking are done by people from two postal districts to pay for drugs.

I feel let down by our state as many of the preventable risks to myself and my possesions come from possible encounters with people who need money for drugs (not all junkies would fall in this category, and not all burglers are junkies) - as well as the problems in the health care system and the scandal of road safety.

prohibition in the US created a large income for criminals just like the drugs trade here does, so should we sacrafice some people to their addictions so that parasites don't benefit

Now, does anyone have any stats for Holland ? how has liberal light drug laws affected heavy use, ( and how many of the increase if any are due to people being there only because of this )

Zombrex

Suppose there is not much point continuing the discussion.

You guys are saying that drug dealers would not be able to survive in business if all they could do is sell to first time users.

I see no reason to believe that is true, I would imagine they would just keep selling to first time drug users until a large number of people are addicted, and that is a much worse problem than when we started. But then since no trial of this type of system has been done we can't know either way.

You guys are asserting that there is only a very small number of people stupid enough to try heroin in the first place, so this customer base would be deminished very quickly, eventually putting the dealers out of business. Again I've no idea how anyone can know that either way (its like saying we can get rid of the speed limit because only a small number of people want to speed and they are doing it already).

But I conceed that if all your assertions are true (which I have my doubts over), then it would be an interesting plan. If it worked perfectly. If anything went wrong you would have a medical disaster of epic preportions on your hands. The fact that you are flooding the population with effectively free heroin would be a worry in of itself. There would need to be a way to ensure that only the user can take their heroin, otherwise the user is free to give bits of their to anyone they like, friends family etc,

Rudolph Claus

How about we just shoot all known/convicted junkies and drug dealers. Shoot them with lead that is, not free heroin. :rolleyes:

On the point of making savings by a downturn on related crime, surely the dealers would turn to some other type of crime and would still be a financial burden on the guards/state resources, maybe even moreso with new types of crimes having to be investigated.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote:

Suppose there is not much point continuing the discussion.

You guys are saying that drug dealers would not be able to survive in business if all they could do is sell to first time users.

I see no reason to believe that is true, I would imagine they would just keep selling to first time drug users until a large number of people are addicted, and that is a much worse problem than when we started. But then since no trial of this type of system has been done we can't know either way.

you don't really understand economics then. no one i know would try heroin. it has a market size just like any other product. new users represent a tiny fraction of the drug market. in fact, most first time uses are given away free to get the user hooked.

if a product has to be given away free the first time, and no one will ever buy it the second time, the market size is effectively zero


and even if everyone in the country tried it once, which you know very well would never happen, that's only 5 million sales. that would take a matter of months with the current number of drug dealers in the country, and then the money would dry up. these people are businessmen. they go where the money is. and the money is not in selling something that by definition only has a one-time customer.

tell me, would you stay in a job if you knew the company was shutting down in five months or would you look for another job?

heroin is relatively cheap. the only things that are economically viable to sell that only have a one-time customer are things like space rockets and super computers. to a heroin dealer, a one-time customer is no customer.


also, dealers would have to try to peddle their crap to more and more people. the current market works through secrecy. if a dealer had to go door to door selling his drugs, he would come across a policeman very quickly

Wicknight wrote:

You guys are asserting that there is only a very small number of people stupid enough to try heroin in the first place, so this customer base would be deminished very quickly, eventually putting the dealers out of business. Again I've no idea how anyone can know that either way (its like saying we can get rid of the speed limit because only a small number of people want to speed and they are doing it already).

we know that because we understand that only a certain number of people will be willing to try heroin. its a fundamental thing in economics

also, in germany, on the auto bahns there is no speed limit and there are fewer accidents in germany per capita than on irish roads. most people don't drive 200kph on those roads for their own safety, just like most people wouldn't try heroin for their own safety, whether it was legal or not. there's always one or two gobsh!tes that race down the autobahn but they're very much the exception rather than the rule, just like heroin users

Wicknight wrote:

The fact that you are flooding the population with effectively free heroin would be a worry in of itself. There would need to be a way to ensure that only the user can take their heroin, otherwise the user is free to give bits of their to anyone they like, friends family etc,

that's just a detail, it can be planned for. and as we've said several times, we're not suggesting you'd be able to go down to the local centra and buy a six pack of smack, it would be administered by a doctor in his office

pH

Wicknight seems to see economics of drugs as supply driven.

It simply isn't, dealers exist to fulfil a demand for heroin, not the other way round (junkies don't exist to use up the supply of heroin).

99% of the demand for heroin comes from addicts (I'd even be amazed if 1 in every 100 sale by a dealer was to a new user). If you take away the demand the dealers just stop selling.

They are not driven by some innate desire to 'Sell Heroin', they sell it because people want it and there's lots of cash to be made selling it.

Possibly WN's been influenced by the term 'Pusher', a silly bit of nonsense that has dealers as evil bogey-men going around pushing their drugs on unfortunate kids.

pH

Came across this great discussion on the 'dangers' of heroin.

Dr. Drew's 100% correct, and you correctly transcribed his major points without distorting them, which makes you correct too.

Dirty needles are problem #1 with heroin. Impure street drugs are problem #2 - you never know what you're getting when you buy street heroin; it's not very well regulated. It gets cut with things like sugar, talc, rat poison, PCP, cheap (and cheaply purified) synthetic opiates that can have toxic contaminants, et cetera.

You gotta figure that cutting with talc (which kills junkies every year by ruining their lungs) is a cost-cutting measure; while cutting with rat poison is sort of a moral editorial, the kind that a not very bright person might essay.

The occasional reports of heroin toxicity, like myopathy associated with 'chasing the dragon', are probably actually due to toxicities from solvents, such as the volatile benzene derivatives used to "chase the dragon" better.

If you assume perfect sterile technique and reagent-grade heroin, the major ill effects will include nausea, severe constipation, itching, and sleepiness. You get tolerant to most of these; after tolerance, withdrawal can be an ill effect. While severely unpleasant (check out W.S. Burroughs' Junky for some vivid descriptions), the withdrawals are not as bad as that from alcohol; no one dies of heroin withdrawal unless they get suicidally depressed and jump off a bridge.

Most people don't realize that heroin is very similar to morphine; it is called 'diacetylmorphine', which means that it is a morphine molecule with a couple extra acetyls hooked to it. This makes it more lipophilic; hence, it crosses the BBB faster. In the brain the acetyls are cleaved off by enzymes, turning it into morphine, and it then binds to opiate receptors there just as morphine does.

Sidetrack :The toxicity of alcohol to every organ system in the body cannot be overstated. Were it not for historical reasons (which include the fact that it's been used throughout recorded history, and the fact that Prohibition was tried and failed miserably) it would easily be classed as Schedule I owing to its toxicities, addictiveness, and unsuitability for any beneficial effects.

I drink a bit of wine or beer now and again, by the way; but I don't try to fool myself into thinking that it's good for me.

http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/26194

There you go, the 'major' side effects are constipation, and nausea.

guildofevil

I really don't see how Wicknight thinks prohibition stops people from taking heroin.

There are many illegal drugs out there and some are more popular than others.

The vast majority of people I know, (other than children and the elderly) have tried cannabis at least once. Most of them would take a drag off a joint if it was passed to them at a party.

None of them have ever taken heroin, why?

We are talking about two prohibited substances here. Why is one passed around the average college party, while the other is reserved for the desperate, who don't see that they have anything to loose?

Because heroin destroys your life. Everyone knows this. And the only people who start down that road are people who don't think their lives can get any worse (I still say they can't be the sharpest tools in the shed either).

Prohibition of heroin has absolutely no impact on this. If you are the sort of person who wants heroin, the fact that it is illegal wont matter a jot.

If you're like most people and would rather not flush your life down the toilet, then free heroin is no more appealing than free strychnine.

Sam Vimes

guildofevil wrote:

Because heroin destroys your life. Everyone knows this. And the only people who start down that road are people who don't think their lives can get any worse (I still say they can't be the sharpest tools in the shed either).

perhaps the reason they try heroin is also the reason their lives have gone to crap. because they aren't the smartest tools in the shed

JC 2K3

pH wrote:

There you go, the 'major' side effects are constipation, and nausea.

You got there before me. Another good, objective link is:
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/heroin/herowith.htm

The most interesting paragraph being:

Heroin in itself seems to pose no real health problems, even when it is used for long periods of time. G. Dimijian in "Contemporary Drug Abuse" (in _Medical Pharmacology: Principles and Concepts_ ed A. Goth, p. 299) describes an 84-yr old physician who had been a morphine addict for 60 years and seemed to have no mental or physical problems from the addiction. In general, it seems that middle-class heroin/morphine addicts are no less healthy than the general population (see D. Musto and M. Ramos (1981) "Follow-up Study of the New England Morphine Maintenance Clinic of 1920," _New Eng J Med_ 308(30): p. 1075-76; J. Ball and J. Urbaitis (1970) "Absence of Major Medical Complications among Chronic Opiate Addicts" in _The Epidemiology of Opiate Addiction in the United States (eds J. Ball and C. Chambers), p. 301-6.)

Sgt. Sensible

guildofevil wrote:

The vast majority of people I know, (other than children and the elderly) have tried cannabis at least once. Most of them would take a drag off a joint if it was passed to them at a party.

None of them have ever taken heroin, why?

It's not a terribly social sort of drug.

Because heroin destroys your life. Everyone knows this. And the only people who start down that road are people who don't think their lives can get any worse (I still say they can't be the sharpest tools in the shed either).

This is not really true. Some of the greatest people in history have used drugs like heroin. It's part of human nature to want to experience everything.

JC 2K3

Pure Heroin is actually healthier than tobacco and alcohol.
Heroin addiction isn't half as bad as alcohol addiction, despite it being easier to get addicted too.
Many professional middle class people in the 50s, especially in the medical field used heroin/morphine/opium, and some were quite addicted, yet they all managed to live successful lives and hold successful jobs.

The impurities, limited availability and high cost of heroin due to its illegality, however, make it very dangerous.

tbh

I would tend to agree with the OP that the main problem with Heroin abuse is the fact that it is an illegal drug. It seems to me like we will never be able to address the drugs problem, at any level, unless society and more importantly governments - change their attitudes quite significantly.

For example, "the best way to deal with drugs is to ban their trade"
anyone with any objectivity can see that this argument is flawed. Prohibition doesn't stop a trade, it just drives it into the hands of the very people the government is trying to foil. Prohibition doesn't hurt the dealers, it hurts the addicts. It also leads to a debate on the rights of governments to decided on personal liberties that extends way into all sorts of areas, but I would respect any government that would say "we accept that the recieved wisdom isn't addressing the problem, so we are open to trying new ways".

So, if we allow people access to legal heroin, how much control should we have? A balance needs to be struck between accepting that people will become addicted and accepting that prolonged use of heroin is ok. IMO, the government should treat heroin - and any other drug, which, in terms of principal should be legalised if heroin is - like cigs - this is bad for you, and we'll make it difficult to access, and provide decent support if you want to quit. This is for purely practical reasons - society couldn't function if everyone was off their heads all the time. But if you make it too difficult to access, the black market springs up again. So I think it would be dangerous to believe that legalising it sorts the problem, and we can forget about it. Which brings me on to my final point: IMO, the only way we can ever beat drug addicition is to pump money - a lot of money - into addressing the reasons people use it in the first place, rather than trying to cure them once they do. Too often in this - and other countries - we react rather than ..eh...pro-act to this type of problem. I accept that people will always use drugs, but I think we could really slash the number of lives that get affected by this by ensuring that there are opportunities - genuine opportunities - for everyone to be happy without having to turn to drugs.