Heroin should be legalised

Thucydides

Firstly, I’m not a drug addict or user of any drug legal or otherwise. Alcohol, yes, though I’m not a huge fan of it.

So, why?

I, like most people, would never have imagined myself saying such ‘heresy’. However, I’ve changed my mind after reading a very eye-opening article by Nick Davis, a writer at the Guardian newspaper. Davis is one of the most respected investigative journalists in the UK and was winner of UK Journalist of the Year some years back.

The article itself, there’s a few of them, was originally published back in 2001 to accompany a documentary on Channel 4, Drugs – The Phoney War.

Needless to say, it caused quite a response

Have a read:

http://www.nickdavies.net/2001/02/01/what-s-wrong-with-the-war-against-drugs/

Prof.Badass

Chipping these in before this thread degenerates to ****;

http://reason.com/archives/2003/06/01/h

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/mediaguide/heroinmyths

xzanti

Stop shouting, we can hear you..

ilovelamp2000

Everyone should read Nick Davies' book, Flat Earth News fwiw.This article also appears in it.

While I agree with his analysis as to what happened when it was made illegal, the situation won't be reversed now by legalising it. It's too far gone.

Joey the lips

another stupid thread on drugs being legalised....:rolleyes:

Your either preaching to the converted,junkies or someone who does not give a shhhh dam.

karlog

Great more junkies. As if there wasn't enough already.

Fluffybums

I have no problem with this as it should make medicinal drugs a bit cheaper. Heroin is addictive and the FDA and most regulatory authority require testing to be done to determine if this is true for proposed medicines, especially psychiatric medicines. This type of testing is time consuming and expensive.

redout

Heroin legal = Fail

Thucydides

karlog wrote: »

Great more junkies. As if there wasn't enough already.

If you had read and understood the article, you wouldn't be saying that.

Hank_Jones

C'mon, you can't push for the legalisation of heroin without being in support of legalising crack and meth.
Everyone knows that these drugs are really just being ruined by what they are cut with. :rolleyes:

karlog

Thucydides wrote: »

If you had read and understood the article, you wouldn't be saying that.

Meh, i glanced through it, saw the words heroin and legal. Then i thought of Dublin and nope, no good can come of this.

dcmu

vinylmesh wrote: »

http://reason.com/archives/2003/06/01/h

The exception to the rule, vinylmesh. Nice story, but if you're one of the hundreds of irish families torn apart by this drug, it's not so compelling a read, I'd wager.

caseyann

My eyes

And no :mad:

bleg

I love the way people post articles by journalists. How bout an article from a doctor, pharmacist or pharmacologist?

B0X

bleg wrote: »

I love the way people post articles by journalists. How bout an article from a doctor, pharmacist or pharmacologist?

Doing something logical is against the AH charter.

Daemos

Oh good, I hadn't seen this sort of thread today yet, I was starting to get worried...

Rented Mule

bleg wrote: »

I love the way people post articles by journalists. How bout an article from a doctor, pharmacist or pharmacologist?

Can we find an article by a parish priest wanting to start a day care centre ?

Sea Sharp

Controversial!

I think the policies recently adopted by Portugal, Mexico etc.. are the right way forward.

There's not a chance in hell I'd touch the stuff though!!!

bigeasyeah

The Guardian is crap like this thread and its subjectmatter.

nxbyveromdwjpg

The ****ing morons in this thread are so depressing, dont even read the article, but just respond negatively anyway.. a great little glimpse into everything thats wrong with the country and in particular these laws.. no constructive thinking whatsoever. In fact no thinking at all whatsoever.

The current laws dont work, at all. So yes.. lets keep at them.

Try a new system? JUNKIE!! :rolleyes:

consultech

I wouldn't neccesarily be against legalising it. It would stand to cull the useless non-contributary members of society at least.

Mrmoe

It is an interesting article an educated me on a number of points. However, it is not certain that if a drug such as heroin is legalised that the blackmarket will end. If heroin is legalised you will always get people who are unable to afford the price of purchasing it legally.

Kurtosis

Mrmoe wrote: »

However, it is not certain that if a drug such as heroin is legalised that the blackmarket will end. If heroin is legalised you will always get people who are unable to afford the price of purchasing it legally.

Very good point. Look at cigarettes, they're legal. Is there a black market? Oh, there is.

Dubs

Rented Mule wrote: »

Can we find an article by a parish priest wanting to start a day care centre ?

Theres a difference between wanting to rape children and being concerned for the publics health, however slight it might seem to you.

Sea Sharp

Mrmoe wrote: »

It is an interesting article an educated me on a number of points. However, it is not certain that if a drug such as heroin is legalised that the blackmarket will end. If heroin is legalised you will always get people who are unable to afford the price of purchasing it legally.

That's a fair point but taking Portugal as an example:

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

Riddle101

Yeah and rather then actually having people buy the Heroin. Maybe they can hand out the Heroin when people come to collect their Dole money from the Dole office:rolleyes:

As Frank Gallagher would say "Cheaper drugs now, make poverty history, Cheaper Drugs now"

Seriously though, while I do think Pot could be legalised. Heroin is just going too far. It's not even funny what Heroin can do to people, and it would cause more problems then solve.

K4t

Nah, what we need is a Dublin 'Hamsterdam' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsterdam

Kurtosis

Thucydides wrote: »

http://www.nickdavies.net/2001/02/01/what-s-wrong-with-the-war-against-drugs/

What a great read. It's a pity that it really is littered with fallacies and errors. I know this is not written on the Irish situation but that's why some of it really doesn't apply here. Anyone know the legal classification of heroin here?

Fago!

Should heroin be legalised?

Short answer - No!!

Long answer - No!!!!!!

Only answer - No!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuggin junkeez!

Mike 1972

consultech wrote: »

I wouldn't neccesarily be against legalising it. It would stand to cull the useless non-contributary members of society at least.

I doubt if all the members of the Oireachtas would try it

xw2lj9uspm1eyh

Wont somebody please think of the children:(.

Blisterman

Portugal have taken a decriminisation policy. To be honest that's not enough.

Decriminalisation doesn't solve very many problems.

Legalisation on the other hand will take the power out of drug dealer's hands, taxes would be raised and the drugs would be safer, as you know exactly what you're getting.

And to those people who say that if heroin's legalised, there'll be much more people doing it, I highly doubt there's many people who want to do heroin, but are put off merely because it's illegal.

Thucydides

penguin88 wrote: »

What a great read. It's a pity that it really is littered with fallacies and errors. I know this is not written on the Irish situation but that's why some of it really doesn't apply here. Anyone know the legal classification of heroin here?

Please elaborate what you mean by littered with fallacies and errors? Also, how does it not apply to the Irish situation?

BraziliaNZ

I really thought my generation (I'm 29) would start putting sensible policies like these into practice in the next 10/20 years. But the stuffy attitudes of the people in power at the moment and the anti-head shop brigade seems to prevail in a minority of people my age too, these arseholes are usually the ones who get into politics, not reasonable, sensible, open-minded people. So we wont be seeing any changes.

Thucydides

bleg wrote: »

I love the way people post articles by journalists. How bout an article from a doctor, pharmacist or pharmacologist?

Again, in the article, he refers to numerous doctors, scientists and experts and reports from various other sources. He also mentioned a Havard academic if I recall correctly.

1nk3d4L1f3

Legalise Heroin... Are you on Drugs?

Fear Uladh

Fago_25 wrote: »

Fuggin junkeez!

Fuggin illiteratez!!!!1

On a serious note I also believe the methods adopted by mexico, portugal etc would work.

Kurtosis

Thucydides wrote: »

Please elaborate what you mean by littered with fallacies and errors? Also, how does it not apply to the Irish situation?

The article states heroin is banned/prohibited. It is not banned in Ireland, it is available.

As much as I hate to waste more time reading that article again, I'll try and go back and pick out of the few of the best(!) points.

Kurtosis

Thucydides wrote: »

Again, in the article, he refers to numerous doctors, scientists and experts and reports from various other sources. He also mentioned a Havard academic if I recall correctly.

Yes but the article is written by a journalist. He takes some of the statements out of context and bends it to try prove his point. Not criticising the author for it, that's his job.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Blisterman wrote: »

And to those people who say that if heroin's legalised, there'll be much more people doing it, I highly doubt there's many people who want to do heroin, but are put off merely because it's illegal.

Well the head shops done well out of legal highs. The legality of a drug plays a big factor in wether ot not people try that drug, legalising the drug could see more people trying the drug.

nm wrote: »

The ****ing morons in this thread are so depressing, dont even read the article, but just respond negatively anyway.. a great little glimpse into everything thats wrong with the country and in particular these laws.. no constructive thinking whatsoever. In fact no thinking at all whatsoever.

The current laws dont work, at all. So yes.. lets keep at them.

Try a new system? JUNKIE!! :rolleyes:

One man and his article won't change peoples views of this drug, from what I gathered from the atricle is that a lot of the tests done on this drug took place 60 years or more. I wouldn't be too happy to go by those reports. Present some new reports backed with good evidence and then you have something to begin your extremely difficult battle of trying to change peoples perceptions of heroin.

penguin88 wrote: »

Yes but the article is written by a journalist. He takes some of the statements out of context and bends it to try prove his point. Not criticising the author for it, that's his job.

Exactly, he is a paid and professional writer.

Not really for the whole legalising of heroin, whatever about legalising softer drugs, heroin is a differant ball game altogether.

lcrcboy

Thucydides wrote: »

Again, in the article, he refers to numerous doctors, scientists and experts and reports from various other sources. He also mentioned a Havard academic if I recall correctly.

the majority of people here are simply not going to agree with you, as to Irelands past experience of this drug, it has torn apart and destroyed families and caused a serious amount of pain. It is illegal here and I'd say it will be for a very long long time before the scars are healed and people even consider legalising it. Plus are goverment wont even consider it untill more influential countrys such as the USA and the UK look into it seriously.

on this forum there has been numerous threads on legalising different drugs so on that note I call this thread a FAIL

Milky Moo

I have what many of my friends called a morbid fascination with drugs and addiction,especially heroin.

In its beginnings it was freely available,like alot of drugs such as cocaine, from the back of catalogues. It was marketed as a cough supressant among other things.

It was widely used throughout the community and it wasn't uncommon to give children it.

The problems came over prolonged use.

Yes the junkies we see on the side of the street are mostly the product of the lifestyle and poor using techniques.
What I find interesting is why some people are so interested in legalising a substance that completely numbs a person senses and lets them check out.

If someone has problems to the extent that they want to basically go in standby mode for a few hours I doubt heroin use is what they truely need!
.

flowersagogo

there are so many nicer drugs that could be legalised....and i'm not being flippant,lived in holland -their heroin policy did'nt work out and the only problem with their smoko policy is the french..

Kurtosis

Thucydides wrote: »

Please elaborate what you mean by littered with fallacies and errors?

So despite how painful it was, I've reread it. As I mentioned previously, this is written by a journalist whose aim is to make his point with whatever evidence he has. So, as expected, he takes points out of context, draws erroneous connections and just ignores other facts.

He loves quoting the medical use to try and prove his point on how "benign" heroin is. Doesn't take a genius to work out that medical use varies hugely from recreational use...as the author says quotes himself in it from one of the doctors he spoke to: "when heroin is properly used by doctors, it is “a very safe drug”"...how about when heroin is used by a junkie? The doses involved are completely different and used therapeutically, the patient is going to be monitored closely by health care professionals and it is going to be prescribed a precise dose by a doctor. Furthermore he presents evidence for his case based on morphine. Morphine is a different drug and behaves differently in the body so once administered, the "hit" takes longer than for heroin, making it less addictive.

He assures us though of a study that happened up to 90 years ago in a Philadelphia hospital of 861 people. As he neglects to mention, not all of these were addicted to heroin, about 20% were addicted to morphine. The findings: they were not emaciated and had a normal weight distribution...well yes, they were being maintained in hospital. Teeth unaffected? Well actually, 60% showed increased incidence on dental cavities, but this is not necessarily down to the drug, more the addicts tendency to not care for their teeth or visit the dentist. And "there is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions", how about psychological effects? Did they not suffer sedation or at least drowsiness?

The author seems to be very hung up on dangers being attributed to the drug when they are actually due to the blackmarket. While the drug and the environment are two important components of drug misuse, their is a third, the mode of use. As mentioned above, if you're abusing it you're going to be taking higher amounts than when used therapeutically. He also explains that many of the risks are due to injection...he attributes this to the blackmarket. This is really the mode of use. If users were so concerned about the dangers inflicted on them by the blackmarket they could always smoke it! But oh no, this is a highly addictive drug, so users are going to try and get as much out of it as they can and inject it. The author oversimplifies things and overuses "the environment" as an excuse. Finally on the point of needles etc, a number of schemes are in operation here and in the UK based on needle exchange and provision of other works to avoid the risk.

One of the funniest points has to be:

In the same way, the classic signs of social exclusion among addicts are the product not of their drug but of the illegality of the drug. If addicts fail to work, it is not because heroin has made them workshy, but because they spend every waking minute of the day hustling. If addicts break the law, it is not because the drug has corrupted their morality, but because they are forced to steal to pay black market prices. If addicts are thin, it is not because the drug has stripped away their flesh, but because they spend every last cent on their habit and have nothing left for food. Over and over again, it is the blackmarket, which has been created by the politicians, which does the damage.

Social exclusion is an attribute of all drug addiction, sure part of the definition is where pursuing and using the drug disrupts daily life.

And apparently heroin does not make users "workshy", it's only they've to rob so much to try pay the high prices...why don't they consume less? Why don't they do extra hours at work to get more money? They don't because the drug is addictive and through the addiction and effects produced (i.e. sedation) the majority are incapable of being functioning members of society.

Also note, the blackmarket is created by politicians, nothing to do with the demand of a highly addicted user base and the supply created by unscrupulous dealers. I'm glad he's finally debunked this basic principle of economics...

Thucydides wrote: »

Also, how does it not apply to the Irish situation?

Well, heroin is not prohibited here. It's a CD2 drug, different to LSD or marijuana and can be prescribed by doctors here. The author points to how heroin is being prescribed to users in Switzerland in an effort to give weight to his argument to legalise heroin...surely this would only support the prescription of heroin to treat addicts? He neglects to mention the logistic problems associated with congregation of addicts in one location as well as long opening hours due to 3/4 times daily dosing and the potential for pharmaceutical grade heroin leaving the therapeutic supply chain.

Ireland may not have a policy on prescribing heroin (nothing to stop us though, it is legal to) and instead have two different substitution therapy therapies used routinely (methadone and buprenorphine) to treat addicts. This is the same situation as in the UK, but the author conveniently ignores this.

tl;dr version: The author justifies the use of opioids medicnally (mainly morphine, heroin a bit), likes to blame the blackmarket often when it is unjustified (though it is justified at times) and ignores many of the policies that exist (methadone, needle exchange, heroin legal here to prescribe).

Thucydides

A genuinely hilarious point. It’s obvious you have no idea who Nick Davis actually is. He is one of, if not the, most respected, professional and awarded journalists writing today. To accuse him of being any old Tom, Dick or Harry journalist from a newspaper like the Daily Mail is beyond reason.

In fact, he ironically wrote a best selling book, Flat Earth News on exposing, ridiculing and highlighting the exact same agenda / media biased ness you alleges he represents.

To your credit, Penguin, and with respect to the various other posters who utter the usual close-mindedness so common among people, your stance doesn’t surprise me.

Firstly, it’s hard to question an entrenched dogma, which has been placed on all of us regarding drug abuse particularly since the 1970s. To argue that the black-market for heroin – and not the heroin itself – is principally responsible for the misery of drugs understandably falls upon deaf ears and ridicule.

Secondly, for you to attack the integrity of Davis, given today’s journalism ‘standards’, does not surprise me. In fact, I’d suspect even Davis himself would agree with you. He himself spend over 400 pages investigating this exact same damming conclusion on the modern press in his high-acclaimed book.

Feel free to have a look at the blurb / reviews of the book on Amazon here.

Among many, here are two

‘Provides a fascinating and vital attack on media distortion and ignorance’
--Financial Times

‘A remarkable book that relentlessly gives example after example of lies, distortion, of propaganda posing as news, of important stories simply not covered, of pseudo events dreamt up by PR people… Maybe, if read by enough journalists, Flat Earth News might act as a wake-up call’
--Irish Times

Need I say more to those among you who question the man’s journalistic integrity? There is more to informed debate and current affairs than what’s published by journalists in ‘newspapers’ like the Metro or Herald AM.

I would also say that Davis, as well with all of those referenced in his article, aren’t so much for the legalisation of heroin, as against its current state of outright prohibition. Indeed, they are of this opinion, not because they are closeted ‘drug kingpins’ or extreme utilitarians, but because they want to stop the misery and suffering that so many of you seem to want to prevent, but yet indirectly condone and allow to continue by defending the current (failed) prohibition policy.

strobe

penguin88 wrote: »

The doses involved are completely different

They really are not.

I can go through the rest of your post and point out other things that show you haven't got a clue what you're talking about if you want, but I really can't be arsed.

Kurtosis

Thucydides wrote: »

A genuinely hilarious point.

Thanks. I'm here all week.

It’s obvious you have no idea who Nick Davis actually is. He is one of, if not the, most respected, professional and awarded journalists writing today. To accuse him of being any old Tom, Dick or Harry journalist from a newspaper like the Daily Mail is beyond reason.

Does that really matter? However well respected he may be, he wrote a piece which you linked to and I pointed out some of the problems with it.

In fact, he ironically wrote a best selling book, Flat Earth News on exposing, ridiculing and highlighting the exact same agenda / media biased ness you alleges he represents.

Ironic? I'd more suggest it's ironic that he committed many of the practices you suggest he lambastes in his book.

To your credit, Penguin, and with respect to the various other posters who utter the usual close-mindedness so common among people, your stance doesn’t surprise me.

Close-minded stance? I tried to avoid taking a stance in my post, I was trying more to simply address the glaring problems with the piece.

Firstly, it’s hard to question an entrenched dogma, which has been placed on all of us regarding drug abuse particularly since the 1970s. To argue that the black-market for heroin – and not the heroin itself – is principally responsible for the misery of drugs understandably falls upon deaf ears and ridicule.

I never denied the blackmarket for heroin does not contribute to the problems with the drug. I suggested that Davis blames it for things it is not in fact responsible for and ignores another contributor to the problems (the three being the drug itself, the environment and, omitted by the author, how it is used/abused).

Secondly, for you to attack the integrity of Davis, given today’s journalism ‘standards’, does not surprise me. In fact, I’d suspect even Davis himself would agree with you. He himself spend over 400 pages investigating this exact same damming conclusion on the modern press in his high-acclaimed book.

Feel free to have a look at the blurb / reviews of the book on Amazon

Need I say more to those among you who question the man’s journalistic integrity? There is more to informed debate and current affairs than what’s published by journalists in ‘newspapers’ like the Metro or Herald AM.

Cool story bro. He wrote a book, you and others like it. Is the piece you posted taken from the book? If not and you're just trying to convince me of his journalistic integrity again, I think we should let his work here speak for itself...

ps the Metro and the Herald AM have merged. Estemmed journalists of the world rejoice.

I would also say that Davis, as well with all of those referenced in his article, aren’t so much for the legalisation of heroin, as against its current state of outright prohibition.

Haha, did you not read any of my post? It is not outrightly prohibited here. Would you like me to show you where it says it or something?


Oh and if you want to refute anything I criticised from the article, feel free to pull me up on it, would enjoy teasing out any points of contention with you.

Kurtosis

strobe wrote: »

They really are not.

I can go through the rest of your post and point out other things that show you haven't got a clue what you're talking about if you want, but I really can't be arsed.

Ah go for it. I took the time to make the points originally, surely you could do the same.


...on an utterly and completely unrelated note, grass is actually red. I'd prove it but I don't really care.

strobe

penguin88 wrote: »

Ah go for it. I took the time to make the points originally, surely you could do the same.


...on an utterly and completely unrelated note, grass is actually red. I'd prove it but I don't really care.

Will there be any point? Do you admit that the medicinal dose of heroin is pretty much the same as a recreational dose? If you concede that, then I'll list the other points you made that I disagree with. If not it would be a pointless exercise.

(sorry about the tone of the other post by the way, saying you haven't a clue comes off very condescending)

Kurtosis

strobe wrote: »

Will there be any point? Do you admit that the medicinal dose of heroin is pretty much the same as a recreational dose? If you concede that, then I'll list the other points you made that I disagree with. If not it would be a pointless exercise.

(sorry about the tone of the other post by the way, saying you haven't a clue comes off very condescending)

I'm going by the product license for some of the heroin products licensed in the UK for the medicinal dose. Not quite sure where to find a reliable source for recreational use, have taken a look on google, found a dose of 5-20mg for a first time user, up to several hundred mg for someone who is heavily dependent. For medicinal use for cancer, heart attack and acute pulmonary oedema the doses are 2.5-10mg. Terminal care is higher.

I'd say they're different doses in general. A majority of people using it medicinally are going to be put on it for as little time as possible due to the risks. Recreational users in the vast majority of cases are going to be on it for a long time, with increasing doses due to tolerance. Taking all this account the average recreational dose is going to be a lot higher than the average medicinal dose.

Thucydides

While reading up on Johann Harri's past articles, I came across this well written peace on the war on drugs. It complements nicely the previous post by Davies.

A journalist for the Independent, Harri, like Davies, is a highly renowned journalist, so please feel free to check his credentials before jumping to conclusions.


http://www.johannhari.com/2009/11/10/face-the-facts-and-end-the-war-on-drugs