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

guildofevil

Pretty much my position on it. The only difference I have is my focus is more on society as a whole.

I am pragmatically, some might say cynically, taking the view that heroin addition happens. The reasons for it are many and complex, but I am more concerned with how it affects the rest of society.

If we can take the profits out of the hands of the criminals and minimize the impact the heroin trade has on the rest of society I will be happy. If, in so doing, we reduce heroin deaths and we manage to get some of the addicts off the stuff, so heroin addiction rates fall, so much the better, but that is only a fringe benefit, as far as I'm concerned.

An article I read today is on point: U.N. warns Afghan opium crop to spur heroin deaths: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061005/wl_nm/drugs_afghan_un_dc_1

dermo88

You want the solution. Here it is. Nice, quick, and effective. One month on death row, max.

Get any drug dealer, and execute them. The Joy would empty soon enough. Get the rope, scafford and trapdoor. Sing the National Anthem as they drop.

As for the addicts. If they are caught shooting up in public, give them two years shovelling piles sand over a 4 foot wall. When they are finished on one side, they can start on the other.

Have a team of soldiers and alsatians keeping an eye on them.

And if you think I'm a right wing fascist, have you any better solutions. Get to Singapore, and see how effectively it works there. You don't have any of your tracksuit skutter scum there going "Howya Bud, have ya got......".

pH

Cos that's worked really well in Singapore, so we should do it here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/15/singapore.executions.reut/

I've got a MUCH better idea!!! - If the purpose is deterrent then why not have the death penalty for all crimes?

Nobody would commit any crimes would they? We'd live in a crime free society if only the government would implement a mandatory death penalty for all crimes!

I can only presume you're 14 and at some stage you'll grow up.

JC 2K3

dermo88 wrote:

have you any better solutions

Yes, legalisation, which is being discussed on this thread.

dermo88

Keep the bloody stuff illegal. By all means, if you want - legalise weed, ecstasy, and whatever else is relatively safe, not too addictive, have tight licensing and regulation. Sales between 2am and 4am on a Monday morning, from Burtonport, Donegal, or somewhere damn isolated, its legal then, just be there to buy it . , and you need a licence to own, possess, and use it. Just like having a gun I suppose . Mind, I could be really smart and build a nice gas chamber there for the heroin using scum when they "disappear"......

"Sorry, they overdosed, heres the death cert, heres the ashes, sorry for your trouble" (Wipes hands, problem solved).

So you don't like the idea of removing human waste from society. No society is perfect, and the solution of state sponsored murder is not perfect. But when you have imperfect actions, actions commited by people with no consideration of morals, or their impact on others, or on society as a whole.

I've been to Singapore. I've lived in Malaysia. Its a good place. There is freedom there, once you know the limits of the freedom. I would rather be ruled by Lee Hsien Loong and the PAP Government, who can manage a country, deliver decent infrastructure, and get things done, rather than be under Bertie Ahern, and Fianna Fail, with the emphasis on FAIL.

I am 30 years old. I don't like the solution. We've tried Mountjoy. We've tried counselling. We've tried every form of socialism known. We've tried being kind, being humanitarian. It has got us nowhere.

I guarantee you, on a Saturday night in Kuala Lumpur, I could walk around Jalan Chow Kit, Pudu, or Chinatown, which I personally regard as the most dangerous part of this city. (not that I would), or I could walk around O'Connell Street in Dublin, for 6 hours. Where am I going to find trouble first. Its going to be Dublin. Absolutely. Some drunk skanger will want to get attention. Here I can skip over the other side of the street and avoid it.

Or in Singapore. I can safely get drunk there, have sex with whoever, have oral sex....misbehave, and have a pile of fun. Just as long as I am not harming anyone else. The laws there are useful. And also for convenience. After all, if you can't nab the guy whos house you've searched for drugs, you can always nab them for someone else. Chances are, if you (as a police officer) had to search the place, you had to search it for a reason. So get them on something else. Smart one. Problem solved

Here in KL, if you want, wave 50 Euro or less, depending on whats happened, and again, problem solved. But I've never had to do that. And anyway, thats for minor stuff, such as drink driving (don't drive, but know people who do). Get caught here, stealing, or the likes, then heaven help you, you'll do hard time.

Think about it.

You can choose to have a fair state, or you can choose a welfare state. And you'll drive yourself crazy trying to find the ideal solution to this. I say stop playing with the lego house, just demolish and rebuilt it, and deal with the problem where it starts. Those who sell, use and abuse the drug. They have to be eradicated.

A society that respects its police force, respects the laws of the land, knows the rules and the consequences of breaking them is a society that works. A society where its all set out in black and white. Where those who play by the rules are rewarded for their discipline, responsibility, and hard work, irrespective of whether they earn 5 Euro or 50 Euro an hour. A society where everyone can afford a home to bring up their families. Thats not what we have now.

Its pretty obvious you want the skangers and scum in charge in place of the Garda Siochana. Thats what you had on "Love Ulster". Thats what you had when the May Day riots happened. Thats what you have outside pubs on a Saturday night in Dublin I'll soon read the bleeding hearts pick holes in this, and mention Garda corruption, and human rights abuses, but you all know the answer to this are cattle prods and alsatians. In your hearts you know thats the answer, but you have'nt the guts to face that sad unfortunate reality. You'll continue building traveller settlements on roadsides, so tyres can burn, and nappies can fly, but you can't face the solution of getting the head of the traveller family to work, even if its sweeping the streets, and resettling the family in a proper, warm, subsidised home. Paying the welfare state for people to do nothing. And you'll be paying so much you'll be doing so much overtime to pay for your own EUR400,000 home, and you'll think...."Does being responsible really pay?" Granted however, thats the Ireland of old, and it has changed for the better in most respects.

Answers on a post card please?

And before you call me a right winger, I am further to the right of Margaret Thatcher when it comes to dealing with scum. When it comes to issues such as social housing, healthcare, education, I am left of centre. When it comes to the economy, right of centre.

Enjoy calling me a fascist.

JC 2K3

dermo88, before getting into your right wing political beliefs you should really research the history of use of opiates like heroin and the actual physical damage they do to your body. Your presumption of the dangers of heroin are unresearched, anecdotal and incorrect.

Back as early as the 50s there were many professional individuals, mainly scientists and doctors, using opiates such as morphine and heroin, many of whom were addicted. Indeed, there are stories of scientists/doctors who had successful careers yet were addicted to Heroin/Morphine for 50-60 years.

The only way to die from heroin is to overdose, the only way to overdose is to take too much, the only way to take too much is to to know how much you are taking, the only way to not know how much you are taking is to not have a pure measurable source.

Heroin is addictive, not as much as it is hyped up to be, but if you get hooked, don't have strong willpower and your only source is extremely overpriced(up to 100x actual value), unregulated and probably impure and very poisonous crap, you're screwed. It doesn't do any physical damage to your body in its pure form, but injecting impurities into your body can be deadly. It isn't very expensive to produce, but if you're hooked on it and have no other source then dealers can charge youu what they want for it. The equivilant amount of heroin that the NHS in England charges addicts with prescriptions £10 for costs about £1000 on the street.

Legalisation and regulation would stop all this.

Oh and I'd support the idea of a "fair state", but not a nanny state. A society with the bare minimum amount of laws necessary to have a relatively stable economy and society, but with those laws respected. Liberal solutions to problems rather than restrictive prohibition laws, more emphasis on compromise.

Happiness>Efficiency

tbh

JC 2K3 wrote:

Happiness>Efficiency

Arbeit macht frei!!

guildofevil

dermo88 wrote:

you all know the answer to this are cattle prods and alsatians.

Gotta love that attitude. I am so right that there can be no other opinion. You all really agree with me but you won't admit it. You say you are 30? Start acting it, 'cos most people cut that kind of sh1t out at around age 12.

Yes dermo88. Your vision of the future sounds like the perfect utopian society. I'm sure we would all happily live in your wonderful society of limited freedom. Everyone too scared to step out of line sounds just great.

How exactly do you define scum? Who gets to decide who the scum are? Maybe someone will decide something you do makes you scum. But then, I forgot, at heart, everyone agrees with you, so anything you do is OK.

Do we brutalize people who break any law at all? It would certainly make the traffic system work better, if the yellow perils had cattle prods and machine guns.

What if our glorious leader decided that it's against the law to have sex outside marriage? Would you like that? Don't worry, no death penalty, just public castration. I mean it would cut down on abortions, unmarried mothers, VD, etc.

Actually, alcohol causes more social problems than all of the illegal drugs put together, so how about we apply your idea to booze?

Yeah. Death penalty for manufacture or supply of alcohol and two years hard labour for possession.

I'm sure there are a raft of other social ills we could cure with this wonderful idea of yours.

And yes, you are right wing. Right of Maggie? Yes. About as far right as a certain Austrian we all know of. He believed strongly in affordable housing and strong middle class values, too. He even created a company to make a “Peoples Car” or “Volks Wagen”. That's how much he loved people. What a guy!

He also created very safe streets. Safe as long as you towed the line, of course. But that is what you are talking about anyway, isn't it? I mean, political dissent would be at least as dangerous as crime. Crime hurts the individual. Political dissent is an attack on our very way of life!

He also believed in gas chambers. They are more time and cost affective than your execution methods, but I'm sure you would get around to it too, once you crunched the numbers. As far as I can see that is the only difference in your politics.

When I said “good for society as a whole” I was trying to propose something that would make life better for most people. Not a cure that is worse than the disease. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.


Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

tbh

guildofevil wrote:

How exactly do you define scum? Who gets to decide who the scum are? Maybe someone will decide something you do makes you scum. But then, I forgot, at heart, everyone agrees with you, so anything you do is OK.

Great post, but the above is all you needed to say IMO

Sam Vimes

dermo88, deterrents already exist for crimes. they don't stop them happening because people think they won't be caught. and someone on heroin is definitely not going to be stopped by the threat of punishment because they have a physical dependency on the drug.

at the moment they're willing to live on the streets and used aids infested needles. what makes you think the threat of punishment is going to stop them?


and yes, you are incredibly right wing. you are in no way left wing


someone on boards has this sig that i thought was quite true:


right-wingers are not necessarily stupid but most stupid people are right-wingers


i don't want to live in a society where i'm constantly afraid of being executed for a petty crime or worse, being executed because they thought i committed one

dermo88

I'm to the right, when it comes to drug trafficking, and serious crimes such as Murder, Rape etc. Lets keep it in proportion though.

America is a nasty example where a crazy proportion of the population is imprisoned. Its also where money talks. If you don't have the money and you are innocent, more than likely the DOJ will hire some incompetent idiot Lawyer who will screw you up. You've got the "liars charter", known as the plea bargain. Shop your accomplices, they'll reduce your sentence.

Britain is'nt much better. The highest proportion of people in Western Europe imprisoned.

Singapore, don't fart crooked.

I'm not advocating the one size fits all approach, by saying "Hang em and flog em all". Thats a last resort. Theres a balance between punishment for the sake of punishment and rehabilitation.

Drug dependency? Secure rehab unit.
Mental Health problems? Secure hospital and not released until improvement is shown with follow up appointments to maintain drug regimens.
No qualifications? Vocational educational unit, so when they get out, they can get a better life for themselves, their families, and ensure that they succeed.
Non-violent offence? USEFUL community work with secure accommodation.

A bit of time spent assessing the offender's needs will actually better fulfill society's. Its a proactive approach to problems, rather than reactive. But this being Ireland, we react after the horse has bolted.

A bit of time with the Gardai chasing REAL criminals, instead of hanging around roadside ditches with speedguns as glorified tax collectors might be in order.

A bit less time imprisoning the likes of the Rossport Five, and a bit more time getting the Alsatians and Cattle prods at the skangers at the Love Ulster parade.

A realistic sentencing policy from Judges who understand the reality of being a crime victim. Who understand the need to deter and prevent. Who understand that its a different, less moral, less caring society in many ways than their days of law school in the 1960's. I doubt they experience much crime in their Ivory Towers.

pH

dermo88 wrote:

A bit of time with the Gardai chasing REAL criminals, instead of hanging around roadside ditches with speedguns as glorified tax collectors might be in order.

I agree!!! speeders should be summarily executed by hanging at the roadside where the offence occurred. A sign with the speed they were doing should be attached to the corpse and left to hang at that spot for a week.

The relatives should then be sent a bill for the rope and the cop's time. Seems like a great plan to me.

Captain Trips

guildofevil wrote:

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

I don't think that happened in the Netherlands though after the reduction in sentencing for cannabis. There are, many argue, far more criminals now.

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

BUT, if it's legal, then more people will likely use it. I smoke cigarettes, but I don't think I would if they were illegal. Suggestible youths already get into drugs with it being difficult to get and expensive, so to legalise it would require a simultaneous massive increase in education spending and removal of crime dens like Moyross, areas of Clondalkin, or else I think it would worsen society by a lot. Education education education.

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.

Good

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.

At the moment, the services for addiction are almost entirely separate from the general mental health services. Both are underfunded to extreme proportions relative to headline friendly "GP Co-op in Navan" services, etc., .

Before any reduction in criminal status (NOT "legalising"), it would require IMHO a few generations of high investment in education of parents and kids for the next 50 years and also a massive increase in mental health funding.

Seeing as we have more suicides than road deaths and schools that are falling down, I'd be surprised if anything changed. Interesting idea though. I'm sure the Dutch have some research into it, sould be interesting to see projections, etc., .

JC 2K3

In the Netherlands, despite an early small surge in drug use rates that returned to normal, they have exactly the same amount of people using cannabis as before, they just aren't criminals anymore. Much more crime? How????

If something's legal it doesn't mean more will use it. Ban advertising of drugs and only people with a genuine and responsible interest will want to try them.

The whole reason drugs are illegal in the first place is due to racism and supression of counterculture in the US in the last century, and we Europeons are the US's lapdogs.

guildofevil

I think the Dutch model has it's problems. The Dutch decriminalized cannabis, when they should have legalized it.

Decriminalization means that the users no longer have to worry about arrest, but it does little to take the trade out of the hands of the criminals controlling it. Legalization is the only effective method of giving the state real control of the trade.

A better idea (and I'm talking about cannabis here, not heroin) would be to legalize it and licence growers.

The vast majority of the cannabis in Ireland is imported. If the government allowed adults to use cannabis in their own homes and carry a limited amount, without prosecution, that would be decriminalization.

If, in addition to that, they issued licences to dealers, with premises, regulations to abide by and liability for under-age sales, etc. and issued licences to growers under similar conditions, while keeping importation illegal, they would take the trade out of the hands of the criminals who currently control it.


As to higher availability of heroin making for more users, that simply isn't the case.

Heroin, like any crop, has good years and bad years. In good years there is more heoin available than in bad.

Under normal circumstances, when the supply of a commodity goes up, the availability goes up and price goes down.

With heroin, that is not the case. In times of high supply, the availability goes up, but the price stays the same, the number of users stays the same and the purity goes up. The market quite simply can't absorb any more heroin. It is at saturation point already.

This is why I say that there are as many Heroin addicts in Ireland today, as there are going to be, regardless of the legality of the substance.

JC 2K3

guildofevil wrote:

I think the Dutch model has it's problems. The Dutch decriminalized cannabis, when they should have legalized it.

What? And get kicked out of the UN?

guildofevil wrote:

Decriminalization means that the users no longer have to worry about arrest, but it does little to take the trade out of the hands of the criminals controlling it. Legalization is the only effective method of giving the state real control of the trade.

How are they criminals if they are doing something which is decriminalised?

guildofevil wrote:

A better idea (and I'm talking about cannabis here, not heroin) would be to legalize it and licence growers.

The vast majority of the cannabis in Ireland is imported. If the government allowed adults to use cannabis in their own homes and carry a limited amount, without prosecution, that would be decriminalization.

If, in addition to that, they issued licences to dealers, with premises, regulations to abide by and liability for under-age sales, etc. and issued licences to growers under similar conditions, while keeping importation illegal, they would take the trade out of the hands of the criminals who currently control it.

Exactly, similar to alcohol. I'd support a massive change in alcohol laws, prohibiting advertisments etc. along with the legalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis.

guildofevil wrote:

As to higher availability of heroin making for more users, that simply isn't the case.

Heroin, like any crop, has good years and bad years. In good years there is more heoin available than in bad.

Under normal circumstances, when the supply of a commodity goes up, the availability goes up and price goes down.

With heroin, that is not the case. In times of high supply, the availability goes up, but the price stays the same, the number of users stays the same and the purity goes up. The market quite simply can't absorb any more heroin. It is at saturation point already.

This is why I say that there are as many Heroin addicts in Ireland today, as there are going to be, regardless of the legality of the substance.

Yup well written. Hence legalisation can only be a good thing.

Captain Trips

Maybe it's not a mature answer, but how about locking people up for 10 years if they test positive for any currently illegal narcotic? I'd bet the "market" would shrink pretty quickly.

Another thought I had was that there are well known effects and standards in alcohol consumption e.g., driving levels, levels which change many different behaviours, etc., . Unfortunately there are no similar ways to test for marijuana's level at the side of the road without piss jars. Everyone would be driving around doped up to their eyeballs but with pioneer badges.

JC 2K3

Captain Trips wrote:

Maybe it's not a mature answer, but how about locking people up for 10 years if they test positive for any currently illegal narcotic? I'd bet the "market" would shrink pretty quickly.

You're smart. Look at the US. Have tough jail sentences worked? NO! And what about freedom of choice? You're harming no one but yourself by using harmful drugs.

Captain Trips wrote:

Everyone would be driving around doped up to their eyeballs but with pioneer badges.

Yeah, because EVERYONE will take to smoking marajuana, EVERYONE who takes it up will be retarded and irresponsible.


It's a bit of a paradox, but if the majority of people are anti-drugs shouldn't they be legalised? Since only a minority are going to use them anyway and if they are so devastatingly bad then only a small amouunt of "idiots" will suffer.

Capt'n Midnight

guildofevil wrote:

In times of high supply, the availability goes up, but the price stays the same, the number of users stays the same and the purity goes up. The market quite simply can't absorb any more heroin. It is at saturation point already.

This is why I say that there are as many Heroin addicts in Ireland today, as there are going to be, regardless of the legality of the substance.

:rolleyes:

The main limiting factor on the supply on Heroin is the illegal trafficking capacity. Most plant derived drugs are dirt cheap to produce, like tobacco. And like tobacco 99.x% of the cost the end user pays is added after it leaves the grower.

Also like other posters you seem to have missed the concept of physical addiction. Heroin is kinda moreish.

Perhaps we could look at sanatoriums or similar where an addict could sign in. They would have to work for their keep or other slight disencentive so non-addicts would not apply , you could not have a doss-house, but neither should it be like a workhouse where you only go if the alternative is dying on the street.

One of the problems with that is the money needed to pay for the habbit means you have something to do all the time, you have to go out mugging or robbing or whatever , so it keeps you busy all the time you aren't bored, That has to be sorted out too.

JC 2K3

Why should the system be so harsh on those who chose to use heroin??

Read all of this: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/herowith.htm

guildofevil

JC 2K3 wrote:

What? And get kicked out of the UN?


How are they criminals if they are doing something which is decriminalised?

The Dutch are in the UN and NATO, what's the problem, there?

Clarification: If possession of a small amount for personal use is decriminalized, that does not mean you can just bring in a couple of Kg's with impunity.

When I refer to the criminals who currently control it, I'm referring to the violent, gun armed, scumbags who control the current drug smuggling racket.

I would be in favour of banning anyone with a criminal record from holding any kind of grower or dealer licence, in the event of a legalization of cannabis.

JC 2K3

guildofevil wrote:

The Dutch are in the UN and NATO, what's the problem, there?

They'd get kicked out(or at least frowned upon) for not supporting the UN's drug policy.

guildofevil wrote:

Clarification: If possession of a small amount for personal use is decriminalized, that does not mean you can just bring in a couple of Kg's with impunity.

They turn a blind eye to that in Holland.

guildofevil wrote:

When I refer to the criminals who currently control it, I'm referring to the violent, gun armed, scumbags who control the current drug smuggling racket.

We still talking about Holland here? Why would there be criminal gangs in charge of bringing a home-grown plant that the police will turn a blind eye to from A to B?

guildofevil wrote:

I would be in favour of banning anyone with a criminal record from holding any kind of grower or dealer licence, in the event of a legalization of cannabis.

Ban anyone with a criminal record for anything besides drug use/sale, I'd support that all right.

Sam Vimes

Captain Trips wrote:

Maybe it's not a mature answer, but how about locking people up for 10 years if they test positive for any currently illegal narcotic? I'd bet the "market" would shrink pretty quickly.

its not quite ten years but they already lock people up for drugs offenses. doesn't stop people taking it. people on heroin are willing to live on the street and use aids infested needles. jail doesn't scare them, especially because its even easier to get heroin in there

JC 2K3 wrote:

How are they criminals if they are doing something which is decriminalised?

Possession of 30 grams of marijuana or hashish (supposedly enough to satisfy the average user's needs for several weeks) was decriminalized. With certain restrictions, the Dutch government also permitted sale of marijuana and hashish in licensed coffee shops. These shops were prohibited from advertising or selling more than 30 grams to one customer. The sale of hard drugs was illegal in the shops, as were sales to persons under 18 years of age. Importing, exporting and selling cannabis products remained illegal outside of the coffee shops.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Captain Trips wrote:

Maybe it's not a mature answer, but how about locking people up for 10 years if they test positive for any currently illegal narcotic? I'd bet the "market" would shrink pretty quickly.

Hehe you really really have no idea how many people take drugs responsibly.

this whole thread reminds me of the brasseye drugs episode - "The kids try heroin at an early age & by the time they reach 17/18 they're rather bored with it"

"Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless, I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me? Builders or blacks for example. If you're one of those, my advice is leave well alone. Good luck. "

mountainyman

pH wrote:

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'.

Well here's one person who would buy Methamphetamine, Coke and Heroin if they were legal but can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get them when they aren't. By the ay I feel that drugs sghould be freely available at least for me.

Look around this country any night of the week, people are already driven to seek solace in legally available drugs.

You are eliding dishonestly between demanding evidence from those who disagree with you and making un backed up assertions to support your position.

MM