should Heroin users be locked up?

Andy From Sligo

so people really reckon on here that if there were these designated shoot up places that it would get the ones off the street shooting up yeah, and it will be properly run and well thought out and proper security? - if so yeah id like to see it work, but i hate being pessimistic but how long til these people are turned away because there is no space to take in more or economic cutbacks forces these centres to close. - its a bit like these shelters for homeless people. no homeless person should be turned away from them ever .... but they are a lot of the time for one reason or another.

I would imagine these new shoot up places would have to have rules - as in where you cannot go into these homeless shelter with drink or drugs on you, what kind of rules would they set for these centres or would they be run with a liberal kind of way? - would they be volunteers or trained medical doctors and nurses? - if one of the rules is no fighting, and a fight breaks out with a user or users are they to be banned? ...... and then out on the streets again and we are back to square 1 ?

I dunno maybe its time to try it see if it works... will cost a lot though to set it up property/premises needed, medical items needed, security guards and security electronics needed - prisons are already in place(albeit full to the brim apparently)

looking_around

Here is one such supervised injection site, working and helping addicts, in Canada.

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/

corner of hells

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so people really reckon on here that if there were these designated shoot up places that it would get the ones off the street shooting up yeah, and it will be properly run and well thought out and proper security? - if so yeah id like to see it work, but i hate being pessimistic but how long til these people are turned away because there is no space to take in more or economic cutbacks forces these centres to close. - its a bit like these shelters for homeless people. no homeless person should be turned away from them ever .... but they are a lot of the time for one reason or another.

I would imagine these new shoot up places would have to have rules - as in where you cannot go into these homeless shelter with drink or drugs on you, what kind of rules would they set for these centres or would they be run with a liberal kind of way? - would they be volunteers or trained medical doctors and nurses? - if one of the rules is no fighting, and a fight breaks out with a user or users are they to be banned? ...... and then out on the streets again and we are back to square 1 ?

I dunno maybe its time to try it see if it works... will cost a lot though to set it up property/premises needed, medical items needed, security guards and security electronics needed - prisons are already in place(albeit full to the brim apparently)

That's a good post , lots of observations around provision of of injecting rooms.

I think the rooms are to be called consumption rooms and as far as I remember a city drug service was at a fairly advanced stage around providing them

Lots to think about first including the legal aspects, who will you allow use the rooms I.e. rough sleeping addicts or anybody , will it 24/7 , what about under 18s ?

Where would you locate it and issues with dealers etc. looking to deal or collect debts.
Will you provide spikes, barrels , citric etc ?

What staff do you employ ? Medics , security , drug service project workers ?

Lots of variables, it's not quite as simple as just opening a building for users .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

There should be a rehab/detox centre attached to it that if people want to, they can be "admitted" from the injecting centre.
Councellors, social workers, nurses, and security should be present.
Access to doctors/dentists. Basic meals provided.

Somewhere people feel safe and not judged. Somewhere they can build up trust with the people who help them and know they'll have full support if they go into rehab.

Andy From Sligo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There should be a rehab/detox centre attached to it that if people want to, they can be "admitted" from the injecting centre.
Councellors, social workers, nurses, and security should be present.
Access to doctors/dentists. Basic meals provided.

Somewhere people feel safe and not judged. Somewhere they can build up trust with the people who help them and know they'll have full support if they go into rehab.

until the government decide the whole project cost too much and just when its all in place and people are trusted , and drug users are just finding the help they finally need there are cutbacks or the whole programme is scrapped because it costs too much. sorry to be cynical but I have seen it done in the past with useful services. The present government (or even the opposition I should imagine if they were in power) arent even interested in putting some serious money into mental health services so i really dont know how they would put money into a massive project like this

Andy From Sligo

inevitable a long term hard drugs user such as a heroin user is going to ultimately turn to crime to feed their habit or pay back debts to dealers if they havent already in the past have arent they?, unless they are already rich and can afford their hits. its only natural, the relief/hit/trip they get from the drug is so intense that that are pushed to do things they wouldnt do if they werent hooked.

- Is that a fair point I have made?

corner of hells

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There should be a rehab/detox centre attached to it that if people want to, they can be "admitted" from the injecting centre.
Councellors, social workers, nurses, and security should be present.
Access to doctors/dentists. Basic meals provided.

Somewhere people feel safe and not judged. Somewhere they can build up trust with the people who help them and know they'll have full support if they go into rehab.

It actually takes an astonishing amount of time for an addict using heroin to get into treatment and then get clean , in some cases years.

You can't actually be admitted to anywhere while injecting and nor is it an overnight happening.

A strong motivated addict might drop 5 to 10 mls of methadone every 3 or 4 week's.

For an addict to access treatment he must first get on a methadone program , stabilise and from there he must get down to between 35 and 45 mls of methadone , that in itself is no mean feat.

He must be assessed and a lot of treatment providers want him to have attended pre entry and stabilisation groups.

Doctors must happy he is physically and mentally ready to do it. And he shouldn't be using tablets, weed , alcohol etc.

His detox is either medical or therapeutic after that he will enter a residential program where he will engage through one to one and in group work .

After all this he may have up to two years aftercare.

It's a long extended process involving lots of key workers, project workers , medics etc.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Methadone is replacing one problem with another. Methadones not working for everyone. They need to figure out different methods of getting off heroin.

corner of hells

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Methadone is replacing one problem with another. Methadones not working for everyone. They need to figure out different methods of getting off heroin.

Regarding detoxing of methadone , you're preaching to the converted.

Regarding stabilisation around harm reduction , avoiding I.V. use , preventing BBV,s it's a good idea.

Suboxone is being used now and I think Americans are talking about an implant.

looking_around

corner of hells wrote: »

Regarding detoxing of methadone , you're preaching to the converted.

Regarding stabilisation around harm reduction , avoiding I.V. use , preventing BBV,s it's a good idea.

Suboxone is being used now and I think Americans are talking about an implant.

FDA have approved an implant.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm503719.htm

Research into kratom for opioid withdrawal would be helpful too, imo.
Many heroin addicts are staving off withdrawal symptoms with kratom. .although for chronic users it has a withdrawal itself..it seems to be more manageable.

talking_walnut

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There should be a rehab/detox centre attached to it that if people want to, they can be "admitted" from the injecting centre.
Councellors, social workers, nurses, and security should be present.
Access to doctors/dentists. Basic meals provided.

Somewhere people feel safe and not judged. Somewhere they can build up trust with the people who help them and know they'll have full support if they go into rehab.

until the government decide the whole project cost too much and just when its all in place and people are trusted , and drug users are just finding the help they finally need there are cutbacks or the whole programme is scrapped because it costs too much. sorry to be cynical but I have seen it done in the past with useful services. The present government (or even the opposition I should imagine if they were in power) arent even interested in putting some serious money into mental health services so i really dont know how they would put money into a massive project like this

One quick question Andy. How are you able to envision a future where the government don't want to pay for a project like this but are happy to pay for a vastly improved prison system, with space for a lot more prisoners and tight enough security to keep any kind of illegal substance out? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the prison approach is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the drop-in approach. It generally costs a lot to keep someone in prison (plus there's the cost of courts, etc. before hand).

You're jumping between the theoretical side that suits your narrative (the government should just lock them all up) to some potential practical problems when people propose an alternative to the norm that shows promise of working. I hope you don't take this as a criticism. I'm just pointing out that every program runs the risk of being dropped by the government for cost-saving purposes.

It's extremely costly to imprison someone and has massive knock-on effects on their lives once they're classified as a criminal (making it even less likely that they'll kick the habit). Remember that this isn't just about the long-term junkie that would probably inject shoe polish if they thought it would get them a bit of a high. There's also the borderline cases that could be helped by being shown a way out. Some might even go on to be productive members of society instead of being a financial drain for the rest of their lives.

In purely selfish terms, would we not all prefer to live in a society that spends less on drug issues and criminals lose a big source of revenue?

Andy From Sligo

talking_walnut wrote: »

One quick question Andy. How are you able to envision a future where the government don't want to pay for a project like this but are happy to pay for a vastly improved prison system, with space for a lot more prisoners and tight enough security to keep any kind of illegal substance out? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the prison approach is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the drop-in approach. It generally costs a lot to keep someone in prison (plus there's the cost of courts, etc. before hand).

You're jumping between the theoretical side that suits your narrative (the government should just lock them all up) to some potential practical problems when people propose an alternative to the norm that shows promise of working. I hope you don't take this as a criticism. I'm just pointing out that every program runs the risk of being dropped by the government for cost-saving purposes.

It's extremely costly to imprison someone and has massive knock-on effects on their lives once they're classified as a criminal (making it even less likely that they'll kick the habit). Remember that this isn't just about the long-term junkie that would probably inject shoe polish if they thought it would get them a bit of a high. There's also the borderline cases that could be helped by being shown a way out. Some might even go on to be productive members of society instead of being a financial drain for the rest of their lives.

In purely selfish terms, would we not all prefer to live in a society that spends less on drug issues and criminals lose a big source of revenue?

im coming from the position that i reckon that there are a lot of people in prison that need not be there any more i am convinced and should be released back into society thus opening up places so no more prisons need to be built. The prisons are already there, they already have security and equipment and services in place that could actually I believe help some addicts , not only would they be locked away from their street dealers and people they owe money to, they will get shelter, food, gym use, use of dental and medical services, maybe a programme inside to get off the gear and get clean and then when they get out , even if they have a criminal record its not the end of the world for them and they can still get work and get on. In the UK I used to work with a fella who worked with reformed prisoners , they still got jobs when they came out even with a criminal record. and not everyone re-offends and its not a revolving door syndrome for all prisoners.

talking_walnut

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

im coming from the position that i reckon that there are a lot of people in prison that need not be there any more i am convinced and should be released back into society thus opening up places so no more prisons need to be built. The prisons are already there, they already have security and equipment and services in place that could actually I believe help some addicts , not only would they be locked away from their street dealers and people they owe money to, they will get shelter, food, gym use, use of dental and medical services, maybe a programme inside to get off the gear and get clean and then when they get out , even if they have a criminal record its not the end of the world for them and they can still get work and get on. In the UK I used to work with a fella who worked with reformed prisoners , they still got jobs when they came out even with a criminal record. and not everyone re-offends and its not a revolving door syndrome for all prisoners.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. I've a feeling most of those assumptions wouldn't hold up if you looked into it, but I'm not an expert.

Personally, I'm not for any increase in incarceration. I'm not convinced it does anything to actually reduce crime. I'd rather we move towards a system of rehabilitation and preemption (through things like early intervention strategies), instead of just punishing transgressors.

looking_around

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

im coming from the position that i reckon that there are a lot of people in prison that need not be there any more i am convinced and should be released back into society thus opening up places so no more prisons need to be built. The prisons are already there, they already have security and equipment and services in place that could actually I believe help some addicts , not only would they be locked away from their street dealers and people they owe money to, they will get shelter, food, gym use, use of dental and medical services, maybe a programme inside to get off the gear and get clean and then when they get out , even if they have a criminal record its not the end of the world for them and they can still get work and get on. In the UK I used to work with a fella who worked with reformed prisoners , they still got jobs when they came out even with a criminal record. and not everyone re-offends and its not a revolving door syndrome for all prisoners.

What people, in on what crimes don't need to be there?

Andy From Sligo

looking_around wrote:

What people, in on what crimes don't need to be there?

For a start, people who are in there that pose no threat to the general public if they were released and that have shown good record in prison. And people that have been put in there for maybe not paying a fine or something like that. Or petty things. Prisons in my opinion should not be used for some crimes.

talking_walnut

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

looking_around wrote:

What people, in on what crimes don't need to be there?

For a start, people who are in there that pose no threat to the general public if they were released and that have shown good record in prison. And people that have been put in there for maybe not paying a fine or something like that. Or petty things. Prisons in my opinion should not be used for some crimes.

Is this not the exact opposite of what you first proposed? Or has your opinion on the best course of action changed?

Andy From Sligo

talking_walnut wrote: »

Is this not the exact opposite of what you first proposed? Or has your opinion on the best course of action changed?

from the start I have said that I feel long term habitual hard drug addicts that have no desire to get off or that cant get off drugs do post a risk to the general public , be it from even leaving dirty used needles around , to mugging/robbing people to get money to pay for their habit or pay back their debts to being a nuisance, to lowering areas of the city .... and what they are doing is breaking the law by using / maybe dealing some of them as well as using and other things and maybe people feeling sorry for them type of drug users is not working and in no way helping them to get off drugs or off the streets and they should be arrested just like anyone else who breaks the law.

looking_around

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

For a start, people who are in there that pose no threat to the general public if they were released and that have shown good record in prison. And people that have been put in there for maybe not paying a fine or something like that. Or petty things. Prisons in my opinion should not be used for some crimes.

So most drug users then?

---
Except the law can change. ..and needs to..because arresting people has failed.
Countries have tried, countries have tried the death penalty. ..punitive suppression doesn't work!

Punishing a user without dealing with the cause. Is lime arresting someone for attempting suicide. It's not going to help. .it's very likely going to make things worse.

mynamejeff

looking_around wrote: »

So most drug users then?

---
Except the law can change. ..and needs to..because arresting people has failed.
Countries have tried, countries have tried the death penalty. ..punitive suppression doesn't work!

Punishing a user without dealing with the cause. Is lime arresting someone for attempting suicide. It's not going to help. .it's very likely going to make things worse.

O i think you'll find that the death penalty will put a stop to a drug habit.

Andy From Sligo

looking_around wrote: »

So most drug users then?

---
Except the law can change. ..and needs to..because arresting people has failed.
Countries have tried, countries have tried the death penalty. ..punitive suppression doesn't work!

Punishing a user without dealing with the cause. Is lime arresting someone for attempting suicide. It's not going to help. .it's very likely going to make things worse.

I wish we could break off this idea that just because its been tried in other countries and failed that it can be shelved before stuff is tried out fully in this country.

you can only help the type of user that wants to get off the stuff anyway - I think a lot of long term users dont want to get off the stuff or have no intention at all of getting off the stuff - and I also dont think all long term hard drug users have ended up drug users to 'escape' from their daily lives or from mental issues either or have a mental or medical issue to address (apart from the fact that they are stoned most of the time) some might of ended up on drugs because they were born into a family of drug users or in a area of high drug use, some might of even started off on soft drugs and when that no longer worked they progressed to something stronger, and some might have started off using with recreational drug taking. I dont believe that all of them had / has issues that need to be addressed. thats my opinion on it and i would just like to say its not because of 1st hand use of knowing anyone on drugs , ive just seen tv documentaries, read books, and looked at cases of drug users online and have just made my mind up on it and have come to those conclusions. maybe i'm wrong and maybe the only ones who really know whats going on are people that used to be users or have drug users in the family.

looking_around

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I wish we could break off this idea that just because its been tried in other countries and failed that it can be shelved before stuff is tried out fully in this country.

you can only help the type of user that wants to get off the stuff anyway - I think a lot of long term users dont want to get off the stuff or have no intention at all of getting off the stuff - and I also dont think all long term hard drug users have ended up drug users to 'escape' from their daily lives or from mental issues either or have a mental or medical issue to address (apart from the fact that they are stoned most of the time) some might of ended up on drugs because they were born into a family of drug users or in a area of high drug use, some might of even started off on soft drugs and when that no longer worked they progressed to something stronger, and some might have started off using with recreational drug taking. I dont believe that all of them had / has issues that need to be addressed. thats my opinion on it and i would just like to say its not because of 1st hand use of knowing anyone on drugs , ive just seen tv documentaries, read books, and looked at cases of drug users online and have just made my mind up on it and have come to those conclusions. maybe i'm wrong and maybe the only ones who really know whats going on are people that used to be users or have drug users in the family.

Punitive suppression has been triex in almost every single country worldwide. .what makes you think Ireland is going to be the one and only country to succeed in the drug war?
It's failed, get over it.

So what if a habitual user doesn't want to quit? We don't go forcing people who are overweight to diet.
It's their choice to harm their body, not yours.

Legal makes it cheaper, means that can work, means they know what they can get and when, means they're not dealing with people trying to make as much money from them as possible.

What is it to you, what someone is addicted to?

Littering needles would be dealt with safe injection sites, that has worked in other countries. ..it would work here ..and it's cheaper than prison.
You could end drug gangs with prescription hard drugs.
This ends crime.

So what if a person wants to use for the rest of their life? Isn't That between them, their GP and their family?
Why does the government have the right to decide what a person can and cannot get addicted too?

You're talking about punishing people for just using. .. assuming that they're going to hurtsomeone. That's not necessarily the case. It's not a given. Being an addict doesn't mean you're going to rob a bank. Some might. ..but many more don't.

They are human too, and if they are only using. .they are deserving of compassion. ..because there's something very wrong in their lives if their only thing to look forward to is a moment's rush.

Edit:
" born into a family of drug users or in a area of high drug use" i dare say coming from a family of drug users is going to lead to developing some problems.

If someone gets hooked to heroin from recreationally using other drugs...then the use wasn't very recreational.
No one recreationally uses opioids. They do so because of pain. Either mental or physical. This is fact.

You're stuck on your particular view, despite evidence all over the world that proves you wrong.
Why are you so against doing something different? Why are you so against helping these people? (In the proven way that actually works)

Andy From Sligo

looking_around wrote: »

Punitive suppression has been triex in almost every single country worldwide. .what makes you think Ireland is going to be the one and only country to succeed in the drug war?
It's failed, get over it.

So what if a habitual user doesn't want to quit? We don't go forcing people who are overweight to diet.
It's their choice to harm their body, not yours.

Legal makes it cheaper, means that can work, means they know what they can get and when, means they're not dealing with people trying to make as much money from them as possible.

What is it to you, what someone is addicted to?

Littering needles would be dealt with safe injection sites, that has worked in other countries. ..it would work here ..and it's cheaper than prison.
You could end drug gangs with prescription hard drugs.
This ends crime.

So what if a person wants to use for the rest of their life? Isn't That between them, their GP and their family?
Why does the government have the right to decide what a person can and cannot get addicted too?

You're talking about punishing people for just using. .. assuming that they're going to hurtsomeone. That's not necessarily the case. It's not a given. Being an addict doesn't mean you're going to rob a bank. Some might. ..but many more don't.

They are human too, and if they are only using. .they are deserving of compassion. ..because there's something very wrong in their lives if their only thing to look forward to is a moment's rush.

Edit:
" born into a family of drug users or in a area of high drug use" i dare say coming from a family of drug users is going to lead to developing some problems.

If someone gets hooked to heroin from recreationally using other drugs...then the use wasn't very recreational.
No one recreationally uses opioids. They do so because of pain. Either mental or physical. This is fact.

You're stuck on your particular view, despite evidence all over the world that proves you wrong.
Why are you so against doing something different? Why are you so against helping these people? (In the proven way that actually works)

oh well I'm defeated with you anyway. At the end of the day my suggestion(s) were just that suggestions. - I thought it might be win win for both users and the general public. The users being in a nice warm dry prison with 3 meals a day and recreation and medical help on tap, company, maybe programmes to get them off drugs, psychiatric help -

and better for the general public, dirty needles off streets, safer streets with less people getting mugged, ghetto areas cleaned up and made safe ... but there you go seems like my idea(s) are rubbish.

talking_walnut

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

looking_around wrote: »

Punitive suppression has been triex in almost every single country worldwide. .what makes you think Ireland is going to be the one and only country to succeed in the drug war?
It's failed, get over it.

So what if a habitual user doesn't want to quit? We don't go forcing people who are overweight to diet.
It's their choice to harm their body, not yours.

Legal makes it cheaper, means that can work, means they know what they can get and when, means they're not dealing with people trying to make as much money from them as possible.

What is it to you, what someone is addicted to?

Littering needles would be dealt with safe injection sites, that has worked in other countries. ..it would work here ..and it's cheaper than prison.
You could end drug gangs with prescription hard drugs.
This ends crime.

So what if a person wants to use for the rest of their life? Isn't That between them, their GP and their family?
Why does the government have the right to decide what a person can and cannot get addicted too?

You're talking about punishing people for just using. .. assuming that they're going to hurtsomeone. That's not necessarily the case. It's not a given. Being an addict doesn't mean you're going to rob a bank. Some might. ..but many more don't.

They are human too, and if they are only using. .they are deserving of compassion. ..because there's something very wrong in their lives if their only thing to look forward to is a moment's rush.

Edit:
" born into a family of drug users or in a area of high drug use" i dare say coming from a family of drug users is going to lead to developing some problems.

If someone gets hooked to heroin from recreationally using other drugs...then the use wasn't very recreational.
No one recreationally uses opioids. They do so because of pain. Either mental or physical. This is fact.

You're stuck on your particular view, despite evidence all over the world that proves you wrong.
Why are you so against doing something different? Why are you so against helping these people? (In the proven way that actually works)

oh well I'm defeated with you anyway. At the end of the day my suggestion(s) were just that suggestions. - I thought it might be win win for both users and the general public. The users being in a nice warm dry prison with 3 meals a day and recreation and medical help on tap, company, maybe programmes to get them off drugs, psychiatric help -

and better for the general public, dirty needles off streets, safer streets with less people getting mugged, ghetto areas cleaned up and made safe ... but there you go seems like my idea(s) are rubbish.

Ah don't go playing the Irish martyr . Your objective isn't bad but most of us don't agree that with your method of achieving it. The stats don't seem to back up the punishment route too.

We all want those things you listed but it looks like Drop-in Centre and legalisation/decriminalization would achieve better results than locking everybody up. It would also have the benefit of removing massive amounts of cash from the gangs pockets. We'll never get rid of gangs through enforcement alone. I don't think there's any country out there that doesn't have organised crime, at least no country in the developed world (i.e. we'd need to make North Korea like changes to society to achieve it).

I said this in another thread but I honestly believe that at some stage in the future, people will look back on the "War on Drugs" the same way we now look back a the "Prohibition" in the US. It was all a bit mad, misguided, and did more harm than good.

ohnonotgmail

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

oh well I'm defeated with you anyway. At the end of the day my suggestion(s) were just that suggestions. - I thought it might be win win for both users and the general public. The users being in a nice warm dry prison with 3 meals a day and recreation and medical help on tap, company, maybe programmes to get them off drugs, psychiatric help -

and better for the general public, dirty needles off streets, safer streets with less people getting mugged, ghetto areas cleaned up and made safe ... but there you go seems like my idea(s) are rubbish.

a nice warm dry prison? I'm sure drug users would thank you for that. have you teleported in from the 18th century?

Andy From Sligo

I don't really know What more to add than to say only that if we go down the specialist shoot up centre routes that other people mention it will not only cost a small fortune in setting up and running that to me in a way it will be like rewarding drug addicts for carrying on what they are doing , it would be like you are breaking the law but not to worry you won't face any consequences instead we will freely let you carry on doing it but in a different place. As usual it will be like moving the problem from one area to another area.

I dare say if these new centres had to be set up there would have to be a feasibility study set up first so that's more money in someone's pocket and a delay in setting it up then for a start!

unfortunately

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

oh well I'm defeated with you anyway. At the end of the day my suggestion(s) were just that suggestions. - I thought it might be win win for both users and the general public. The users being in a nice warm dry prison with 3 meals a day and recreation and medical help on tap, company, maybe programmes to get them off drugs, psychiatric help -

and better for the general public, dirty needles off streets, safer streets with less people getting mugged, ghetto areas cleaned up and made safe ... but there you go seems like my idea(s) are rubbish.

We all want a better society where people can realise their potential and not be addicted to drugs. But I completely disagree with your idea to imprison someone for drug taking. Someone can be addicted with no intention whatsoever of quitting, they could be ruining their life and health but I'm not going to coerce them or take away their freedom even if it is "for their own good". That is a very dangerous principle - when you decide what people do with their lives and bodies. If I lock a mate in a room for a week and deprive him of tobacco; and if when released he completely quits fags, unlikely, but say he does, then I've probably saved him years of life later on and prevented him from dying from lung cancer but regardless of the good consequences you can't do something like that. You have no right to lock someone up, if they don't harm anyone else. Using the state to lock people up is the same principle.

You generalise drug users too; if they rob or steal then arrest them for that - you seem to have an attitude that they are all feral and are sort of broken humans and we can do nothing until they are imprisoned.

Dirty needles in streets, robbing for money, unknown dose/impure drugs, funding criminal gangs are all caused by it being illegal.

If you want to help someone the first thing you shouldn't do is make them a criminal.

unfortunately

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I don't really know What more to add than to say only that if we go down the specialist shoot up centre routes that other people mention it will not only cost a small fortune in setting up and running that to me in a way it will be like rewarding drug addicts for carrying on what they are doing , it would be like you are breaking the law but not to worry you won't face any consequences instead we will freely let you carry on doing it but in a different place. As usual it will be like moving the problem from one area to another area.

Unjust laws should be ignored, ideally repealed but needs must.

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I dare say if these new centres had to be set up there would have to be a feasibility study set up first so that's more money in someone's pocket and a delay in setting it up then for a start!

Heroin addiction is a problem in our society - there are health costs, economic costs caused by unproductivity, and social costs. Now we are going to have to spend money in any case to mitigate these costs.

Your route is keep it illegal and imprison users - this is fantastically expensive I think it's like a EUR100,000 per prisoner; not to mention drug squads and policing that is diverted from solving actual crimes that harm people and damage property. Also by keeping it illegal you give a monopoly to organised crime that also has to be fought with Garda resources. Organised crime cost us millions and leads to murder and violence.

Opening injection centres and providing pure heroin, strangles orgainsed crime's funds, saves the costs locking someone up 24/7 while they probably are taking heroin inside or will resume when they get out because who's going to employ a criminal?

It will cost money but if we do nothing it will costs us, and if we keep it illegal it will costs us.

Andy From Sligo

Can people who say hard drug taking should be legalised tell me why they think it was criminalized in the first place, and why they thing for years there has been talk about legalizing it but it never seems to happen? I suppose some are going to come up with the old argument about that other addictive substances such as ciggies and beer is taxed by the government and hard drugs aren't and this is why they are illegal, but no there's something more to it than that

unfortunately

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Can people who say hard drug taking should be legalised tell me why they think it was criminalized in the first place, and why they thing for years there has been talk about legalizing it but it never seems to happen? I suppose some are going to come up with the old argument about that other addictive substances such as ciggies and beer is taxed by the government and hard drugs aren't and this is why they are illegal, but no there's something more to it than that

Andy, you seem to want us to supply you some arguments for criminalising drug use.

Criminalising drug use for the same reasons as criminlising alcohol during prohibition - a combination of moralising and health concerns. However, I reject their tactics - you can't imprison someone to stop them doing something that harms their health.

Our collective goal is so help people with addiction and hopefully end it. It's wrong to kick someone's door down and arrest them because you disapprove of their choices or think that it's for their own good. It should not be a crime.

Why haven't they been legalised yet? You tell me, I obviously see no valid reason for using force against people who harm no-one else - you evidently do.

Andy From Sligo

unfortunately wrote:

Our collective goal is so help people with addiction and hopefully end it. It's wrong to kick someone's door down and arrest them because you disapprove of their choices or think that it's for their own good. It should not be a crime.

I'm not talking about kicking someone's door down, why people do in their own homes or choose to live their lives is up to them. I am talking about drug users on the streets and leaving their dirty needles behind and mugging and robbing, that's the ones I think should be targeted and dealt with accordingly.

unfortunately wrote:

Andy, you seem to want us to supply you some arguments for criminalising drug use.

Not at all, just getting other peoples views, its always good to listen to other peoples views and outlook on stuff.

unfortunately wrote:

Criminalising drug use for the same reasons as criminlising alcohol during prohibition - a combination of moralising and health concerns. However, I reject their tactics - you can't imprison someone to stop them doing something that harms their health.

We all know that most if the time we live in a nanny state and that indeed a lot are locked away to help them and others already

unfortunately wrote:

Our collective goal is so help people with addiction and hopefully end it. It's wrong to kick someone's door down and arrest them because you disapprove of their choices or think that it's for their own good. It should not be a crime.

unfortunately wrote:

Why haven't they been legalised yet? You tell me, I obviously see no valid reason for using force against people who harm no-one else - you evidently do.

No I dont actually, but hard drug users shooting up in broad daylight and allowed to get on with it is harming others or society as a whole in one way or another.