You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I can't imagine a situation where somthing as dangerous as say heorin or its derivatives is sold as freely as alcohol or tobacco
Welcome to the 1930's.
Why the insistence on making heroin user consume their product on a regulated premises? There was no evidence that when Drs could prescribe and pts were allowed to take it home, that it caused any problems
joeydeaconthen there would be no demand for anything on the black market - who would take the risk importing anything if they're being undercut by the government, with a better safer product.
Isn't that the case with cigarettes at the minute though?
Isn't that the case with cigarettes at the minute though?
When's the last time someone got mugged for cash for cigarettes? Plus the penalties for importing / dealing cigarettes aren't that severe compared to heroin, so the risk is worth it. Keep the current laws for unauthorised dealing/importing of Class A's, but this would largely be irrelevant - if you're a junky do you
A) Steal stuff all day, to get £300 and risk being beaten up/arrested to buy an inferior unsafe product cut with random powder
B) Pay £20 at a government clinic for a pure safe hit
The bottom would fall out of the illegal trade in no time, so the reward wouldn't be there for the dealers, to make the risk worthwhile.
With cigarettes the risk is still worthwhile.
Edit: I should add, cigarettes are a lot easier to deal, as there are far more addicts, it's easy to purchase abroad in large quantities, the punishment isn't that severe, and the product is fairly socially acceptable (than say heroin) so there is no social stigma.
Why the insistence on making heroin user consume their product on a regulated premises? There was no evidence that when Drs could prescribe and pts were allowed to take it home, that it caused any problems
This is largely due to the fact that if people are injecting heroin at home, something will go wrong in a handful of cases, people will die, then the papers would have Leah Betts level of outrage and public opinion might change
If it's in a safe environment then this A) Minimises the risk of people dying, and B) Takes away the appeal of trying potentially long term health damaging drugs (I'm aware this isn't all of them) to a younger audience (same as plain tobacco packets, or the current Smoking Causes Cancer health warnings)
It also reduces any black market, where people resell their prescription for profit.
Well I sort of see the point your making, but heoin use is still really bad for you.
I knew a successful small businessman and wife who used to partake a cheeky dig on the quiet when they thought no one was looking. Healthy, good looking, clear skin and eyes, fully functioning and H was taken only recreationaly.
He could afford the best, wasnt grubbing around in the filth for a hit like most street users and had a good lifestyle and diet.
Go figure
If you still charge for it, [b]you still have the problem that addicts, who can't hold down a job because they are addicts[/b], can't afford to pay for it. So let's put that issue to one side and agree that we're going to give it away for free, like methadone.
Wrong. As the study in the 90's Liverpool proved.
A study group were prescribed heroin. most were functional and held down steady jobs. Addiction rates declined.
Until the Tory party pulled the plug. And adiction rates climbed again>
What is the correlation between addiction to drugs every time the modern Tory party gain power and decimate communities, Smack in the 90's, spice today
This is largely due to the fact that if people are injecting heroin at home
Pts have no need to inject it, when it was prescribed by Drs in the 90s the heroin was preloaded (in liquid form) into ciggies and taken at home as and when required.
I take your point about safe environments. The rest isn't true though
Have you a link for that 90's experiment by Liverpool Health services NickC ? It makes interesting reading
Hi ulysse Im aware of the Liverpool harm reduction model.
Pts have no need to inject it, when it was prescribed by Drs in the 90s the heroin was preloaded (in liquid form) into ciggies and taken at home as and when required.I take your point about safe environments. The rest isn't true though
I haven't read the study, but I presume it was for existing addicts, rather than being offered to new users? IMO using a clinic would reduce the number of first time users?
Yes, it was for proven hard core users, and yes it reduced the occurence of new users by stopping existing users dealing to feed their habits
If we legalised drugs maybe music would get a lot better
To be fair, there hasn't been a study on whether using a clinic would reduce first time users even further? (Or did the study have two groups, one with take home meds, and another with on-site usage? Either way it's a bit difficult to measure any effects on new users outside of the testing group?) - if the sterile environment takes away the "Cool" factor then this could also help.
Haven't read the whole thread, but this nugget of ignorance jumped out.
Heroin is also damaging in any quantity - there is no safe amount.
This is very interesting, because Mrs Daz was given intravenous diamorphine when in labour, and oldest-daughter-Daz was given a diamorphine nasal spray when she got a frozen shoulder. Quite frankly I'm rather shocked that both the maternity unit and the children's A&E unit at Manchester MRI would be so reckless to use an unsafe drug. Who do I complain to?
I did but your answer was betterit doesn't answer how we should implement such a policy.
I think the softer drugs can be monitored as we do with alcohol or cigarettes - lets be honest they are safer and less addictive- and harder drugs such as heroin can be monitored as you suggest.
As i said I am sure it will have weaknesses but it wont be as bad as we have now
Must admit i'm against "monitoring" as standard for hard drugs.