PDA

View Full Version : Brunstrom backs open sale of heroin


Grainger
5th Feb 2004, 19:46
If you thought North Wales Police Chief Richard Brunstrom was barmy before, wait until you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3460485.stm
"What would be wrong with making heroin available on the state for people who wanted to abuse their bodies. What is wrong with that?"
Has the guy completely flipped his lid ??? This is the same bloke who's got the roads infested with cameras.

Talk about taking an extreme point of view (zero tolerance) to one problem, then the exact opposite extreme logic (decriminalise) to another problem. :confused: :mad:

Parapunter
5th Feb 2004, 20:37
He's right of course. It serves no purpose getting all hissy fitty over headlines. Most petty crime & some not so petty is caused by the need for addicts to get money to feed their habit. I'm talking burglary, mugging, nicking from cars, shoplifting etc. If heroin were legalised, this would be done away with overnight in some parts of the country.

I think if you examine any proposal, you won't find anyone looking to sell it at the newsagents, but making it available in controlled environments where the purity is known & overdoses avoided.

It is Middle England's middle class hysteria that keeps drugs illegal & the politicians pandering to the block vote that keeps our laws regressive. The illegal status of heroin does not work, it keeps dealers & smugglers (Al qaeda, IRA anyone?) going, criminalises swathes of society & maintains crime levels. Brunstrom's right to push the agenda - Heroin addicts are not inherently dangerous people, providing you keep em away from machines when they're stoned, but by marginalising them, you make them that way. How about a constructive debate on the subject for a change???

eal401
5th Feb 2004, 20:53
So, it's perfectly OK to use herion in North Wales but disgusting and criminal to go a little over the speed limit?

Now I know he is mentally disabled.

Nick Riviera
5th Feb 2004, 21:05
I don't understand the argument that legalising heroin would bring crime down. Unless it is going to be given away free, then users will still need money to pay for it. Admittedly, the price will drop, but if you are a smackhead you won't be holding down a job, so you will still need money from somewhere.

Binoculars
5th Feb 2004, 21:26
...if you are a smackhead you won't be holding down a job....

It is such well-informed, well-reasoned arguments, Nick, that prevent the opportunity for any possible advancement in the war against drug-related crime (note, not the war against drugs) in the so-called educated Western countries.

Tinstaafl
5th Feb 2004, 21:59
Interestingly, pure heroin has few adverse side effects. Constipation, anyone? Compare that to tobacco, alcohol etc etc.

I'd rather be operated on by a heroin addict who has access to safe & known dosages of the stuff than an alcoholic.

Grainger
5th Feb 2004, 23:35
Interesting. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the heroin debate, you've gotta admit that calling for full legalisation and free availability is a fairly extreme approach to the problem.

It's the inconsistency in his extreme approaches to law enforcement that bothers me - in one case ever more severe enforcement of the law to the point of obsession, in the other case a call to relax the law.

We're always being told that "the law is the law" and that the police can't pick and choose which laws to enforce and which not, yet here he wants to do exactly that.

Nick Riviera
5th Feb 2004, 23:55
Binos

I was using a generalisation for the type of addict who turns to crime to fund his habit. It was possibly not the most intelligent thing I have written for which I apologise. However, I would be surprised if a large proportion of this type of addict managed to hold down employment.

surely not
6th Feb 2004, 02:06
Perhaps he has his speeding confused with speeding:confused: :D

Not sure that I can feel comfortable with Heroin being made legal, I remember seeing a very bright friend of the family destroy his life with Heroin abuse. He ended up unable to look after himself and died at the age of 24.

Conversely I do know others that have been able to control their habit and who hold down very responsible jobs in finance.

I guess it is the same conundrum as those who can handle alcohol, and those that become gibbering alcoholics.

airship
6th Feb 2004, 03:08
surely not

...who hold down very responsible jobs in finance.

obviously high finance
clunk, click, every trip
:)

MMEMatty
6th Feb 2004, 03:09
Heroin is evil, evil stuff.

It destroys families, turns normal healthy people into human zombies just lusting after their next fix.

Very very addictive, and the side effects when you try and come off it are nasty.

I accept that there are other similar substances (Alcohol etc) that are just as damaging, however Heroin is particularly nasty.
People injecting it into their eyeballs because all their acessable veins have collapsed, people not being able to think about anything but their next fix. Trust me it is evil, wrecks lives, families and communities

Unfortunately, Heroin and Heroin abuse are here to stay, you are not going to ever get rid of the stuff. People are always going to want to do silly things to their bodies.

As Nick Riviera said, unless your going to give it away for free (on the NHS presumably, and how many people would support that?) you are not going to do mutch about crime figures.

As for people who could hold down respectable jobs in finance, im skeptical to say the least. Perhaps not yet, but their addiction will catch up with them

But why not? Legalise everything? lets all stop being "middle Class hystericals" and ride the tigers tail of crime and violence that will sweep our streets.

OTT? No, you just have to look at our council estates and inner cities to see what problems heroin brings. Problems that legalising the sh!t would not solve


Matty

surely not
6th Feb 2004, 03:20
It sounds as if you might have been closer to the problem than many of us Matty.

From what you say, and because you do not normally post illiberal clap-trap, I find myself persuaded that it should continue to be outlawed.

Tinstaafl
6th Feb 2004, 03:28
The problem is that prohibition has never worked in human history. As long as there is a demand - legal or otherwise - then someone will cater for it. If it's illegal then it becomes a honey pot for organised crime, costs rise & quality deteriorates.

Society wears the large additional cost. Greater health problems for the addicts from poorer quality, 'cut' product & random dosage as well as the underground nature making sterile equipment problematic to obtain leading to various infectious diseases. The higher prices that illegality causes results in more difficulty for users to fund their habit. Since honest work often is not lucrative enough then theft, robbery & prostitution becomes the revenue source. Not that I'm against prostitution, per se, but there's a difference between choice of occupation & one forced by a price skewed market. Meanwhile organised crime laughs all the way to the bank.

All for no gain. Even worse, a net cost.

VFE
6th Feb 2004, 03:42
Having known and worked with a few heroin lovers in the past I might be able to enlighten a few about this drug which some may not be aware......

This rush created by heroin is usually accompanied by an extreme warm feeling and a sense of well-being. The overwhelming pleasure is far greater than any other drug on this planet and is the reason it becomes so dangerous and addictive to those seeking escape in life. You could have a mere couple of puffs of heroin and be lifted off to nirvana and be loving every minute. One more puff and you're well over the edge and into the abyss. It's the straw that breaks the camels back and you won't be able to move. If you were to vomit you'd choke, it renders you useless. The most common form of heroin consumption is through smoking it.

With this in mind I fail to see how any establishment could regulate the substance to avoid this more than likely scenario. Basically, the government would be legally selling certain death to many weak minded people which is morally wrong. Not all people are strong enough to decline certain euphoria. The old argument about alcohol being legal and immoral is no justification for legalising another drug such as heroin which is not even in the same ocean let alone the same boat! Making alcohol illegal will never happen in the UK but to make heroin legal on the grounds that there are far worse evils out there like alcohol is about as daft as any reasoning I've ever come across if it were true! Crime will be lowered? Yeah right! It will most likely increase as hoardes of nirvana chasing youngsters pull whatever strokes they can to aquire this newly legalised drug!

Heroin sedates the central nervous system, clouding mental function and makes you feel drowsy for several hours after a dose. You may appear to be asleep but actually be awake.

The drug that is creating this wonderful euphoric feeling as if nothing negative is happening, abuses the person as a whole. The person is deceived into believing that the heroin is not effecting them nearly as much as it truly is. The person may experience many different symptoms of the effects. Before the body is effected, the mind takes the first blow of heroin. Immediately the heroin user can no longer view the world the same way he/she did before the first dose of the drug. Answer this: if someone showed you nirvana and all encompassing pleasure would you want to face reality without it ever again or would you be strong enough to look the other way? Some people are lucky and simply feel sick on the drug and decide never to take it again, others are catapulted into extreme bliss and personal oneness which they have no desire to relinquish. Paranoia will set in pretty damn quick if they do relinquish anyway.

The body will begin to wither away, muscles will begin to atrophy, and the user will not be able to ingest or digest food correctly. The mind will no longer function properly; the user will no longer make clear decisions. The inner peace of the heroin user will quickly slip through their fingers as they reach for more heroin.

Towards the final stages of heroin addiction the mind is so immersed in the addiction that the user can no longer tell right from wrong. Again, crime results as the user strives for the money to buy more. The only way to reverse this situation is through tough detox. The detox programmes alone would probably cost the taxpayer far more than the crimes that result from illegal heroin use. In Sweden they used to have an allowance programme whereby you were permitted a certain amount of alcohol each week. Over that amount and you're snookered. There was still an active illegal market for booze during this time so the same scenario would materialise should such a programme be initiated in the UK for heroin.

Once again we witness the usual, pathetic, money orientated posting come out the closet suggesting that state sponsored drug addiction is far better than a higher crime rate which, as I've already said, is highly debatable anyway. Talk about losing sight of what's important in a civilised society! When will some of you put money out of your heads on every issue and see the moral rights for a change?

Eighteenth birthday parties these days consist of four pints of lager and a sore head in the morning, not permanent personality and physiological damage. Let's keep it that way at least for a little while longer, eh.

VFE.

surely not
6th Feb 2004, 04:21
Thank you VFE and Matty, excellent posts that bring a reality check to the subject.

surely not

Grainger
6th Feb 2004, 04:33
Yes, thank you VFE and Matty. Certainly opened my eyes. I knew the stuff was bad news, but jeezus . . .

Seems to me a better approach would be to put more effort into rehabilitation and treatment centres to help get people off the filthy stuff.

Maybe Mr Brunstrom would benefit from reading this thread. . .

airship
6th Feb 2004, 05:33
What really upsets me when it comes to these questions of "individual liberties vs. general public interests"...

General P. Interest is always very quick to decide when something represents a danger. The usual result is to criminalise it.

Break a leg and you go directly to hospital.

Find yourself addicted to illegal drugs, watching snuff movies, trying to drive when drunk or whatever and you generally go directly to jail.

When was the last time you voted-in a government because they recognized that noone starts out in life this way naturally? And that society had a duty of care to them also.

When was the last time any political party had any such ideas in its manifesto?

Who is guilty? Governments which levy a 500% tax on "legal" substances such as tobacco which kill far more than heroin ever did? Governments who then spend a small fraction of those taxes in trying to "break" the addiction. Obviously these are the same governments who then refuse to reimburse nicotine patches or properly finance other possible remedies.

:mad:

airship
6th Feb 2004, 07:05
Houston, Houston Control...uhhh PPRuNe, we have a problem.

I was in the process of responding to VFE's reply to my post concerning his post to my post etc. when his last reply just disappeared. It looks serious...any debris reports?

I have already reported the problem here The really really boring... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92180&perpage=15&pagenumber=352) but have had no response yet.

:{

Unwell_Raptor
6th Feb 2004, 07:19
As ever, Grainger homes straight in to the ranting tabloid point of view, this time about hard drugs.

Those of us who have had to deal with users and suppliers of heroin (the nastiest of the heavy drugs so it is my exemplar) are the last to embrace simplistic solutions, because we know that this is a complex issue that requires a careful and above all patient approach.

I do not know the answers - I have barely worked out the questions, but for what it's worth, here are a few often contradictory facts.

Drugs feel good.

Drugs kill a few people but most get away with it.

People at the bottom of the heap, socially, psychologically, or however, welcome the chance to blot out reality and to feel good, as above.

Once heroin takes over a life nothing else matters but the next score.

London addicts average (not my figures) 70-100 per day on heroin. The deficit on 50 weekly dole money is made up by theft - mostly shoplifting. Duracell and razor blades are top targets as their value to bulk ratio is good. Some sell their bodies, but the heroin reduces their market price. Car theft and mugging are also popular.

Prohibition means that the price is high, and so are the dealers' profits. Dealers are so jealous of their profits that the preferred method of resolving a dispute is an Uzi.

Much street traded heroin is adulterated.

Most street dealers are poor, and a high proportion are themselves addicted.

Legalisation with sales through carefully regulated pharmacies would control quality and eliminate huge street profits, thus cutting the income of some very nasty gangsters.

Drug profits have been recycled into some legit businesses, and have given huge power to some not very nice people. Following the precedent of the USA in the Twenties, legalisation will stop the short term profits, but the criminals may well be too rich and too esconsed to eliminate. In 30 years' time a Yardie's grandson will probably be in Parliament.

While a kilo of heroin can be purchased in Pakistan for (more or less) 2000 USD and sold on the streets of London for 40000 UKP someone will take the chance to bring it in.

So what's the easy answer?

No?

Me neither.

VFE
6th Feb 2004, 08:24
Yeah, I have an answer.

Keep heroin illegal.

Grade areas of the country in terms of high drug addiction risk and drug related crime, then, invest more money into those areas by building more places for kids and young adults to occupy their minds without the need for quick escapism. It would also make a pleasant change from wasting money on many of the things which annoy the majority of UK residents. No pact drill.

Invest more money into British industry rather than opting for the cheaper foriegn option. Thanks to Hestletine for that phenomena. How long did it take for 'Harry' to infiltrate what was left of the mining communities once they'd been closed down I wonder?

Allow the courts tougher sentancing powers on drug dealers.

Also, some deglamourisation of the drug culture evident in certain professions, namely those associated with entertainment, would be a positive move. If I see another celebrity who's done the "rehab trip" pouring their heart out on daytime TV once more I shall scream. Yeah, step forward Tara Palmer-Tomkindoodah. Upper class junky lauded by the media as some girl power "ab-fab" style hero. Makes me sick.

Summary:

Legalising heroin would open a myriad of new social difficulties which judging from other threads around here we need to stamp out, not encourage. Legalising heroin would be extremely difficult to monitor, regulate and treat and would probably cost the country dearly. The same few people who turn to heroin now to escape their situation will be the same few who turn to it when legal. What is more worrying is those people who would otherwise not even have thought twice about using the brown stuff will be exposed to to a whole new set of problems, to mention nothing of an already overstretched NHS.

Lastly, sometimes there are simple morals to uphold. The fact the government exploits smokers now does not mean they should be allowed to exploit heroin users in the future. Sometimes we just have to admit defeat and accept the status quo as not being fantastic but the best given the circumstances. Great Britain is not yet over run with heroin addicts but who's to say what it'll be like if made legal!

VFE.

Chaffers
6th Feb 2004, 15:13
Why on earth would the police want to target the drug culture? Would involve dealing with lowlifes all day and trying to stop everyday petty crime. Wheres the fun in investigating a burglary or shoplifting? Why didn't that idiot park his car in a safer place in the first place?

If they target gun crime on the other hand they get all sorts of new toys, things that go bang and lots of nice black clothing thats makes them look awfully cool.

Targetting motorists means they need souped up pursuit cars with loads of gadgetry, preferably with a helicopter or two thrown in. Much more fun. :rolleyes:


Detox is one thing, though I know a perfectly sensible girl who has been on and off Heroin for the last 8 years. She simply can't help herself, after trying some at a party when she was 17. She works as a nurse, so understands all of the physiological and psychological effects, yet still can't but help herself when she is down or in a certain mood. She's hardly the sort of person you'd think of as an addict...

I would imagine that she will be a user all or most of her life.

Grainger
6th Feb 2004, 17:08
"As ever" U_R ?

How many "ranting tabloids" have you seen advocating increased funding of rehabilitation and treatment centres ?

I'm sorry if you feel that offering people the chance to be cured of a destructive addiction is a "rant", but we all have our own points of view I suppose.

As ever,

G

VFE
6th Feb 2004, 20:05
She simply can't help herself, after trying some at a party when she was 17.
One party at age 17 and she's hooked. No "making it available in controlled environments where the purity is known & overdoses avoided" is gonna stop that Parapunter. It is misery all the way from that first exciting taste. This is what some people fail to realise. The sheer power and wonderment of this drug makes it impossible to administer with clinical logicality.

You wanted a constructive debate so there it is.

VFE.

Dr-Evil
6th Feb 2004, 22:21
Chaffers, too right. Give the police more kit, all that they want, pay them more and recruit many more of them I say.

My little bro has just finished his training and has to pay from his own pocket for decent clothes & kit to do his job - all so some pi$$ed up pr1ck can gob at him on a saturday night !

I used to think it fashionable to be anti police too, then I learned some facts about the job and grew up.

Your post makes me wretch.

Now back to the heroin.......

Unwell_Raptor
7th Feb 2004, 05:45
Grainger:

Since you started the thread with this lot:-

"If you thought North Wales Police Chief Richard Brunstrom was barmy before, wait until you read this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What would be wrong with making heroin available on the state for people who wanted to abuse their bodies. What is wrong with that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the guy completely flipped his lid ??? This is the same bloke who's got the roads infested with cameras.
Talk about taking an extreme point of view (zero tolerance) to one problem, then the exact opposite extreme logic (decriminalise) to another problem."

These are quotes from a tabloid, and they attempt to link the entirely unrelated issues of speeding and drugs. Brunstrom's views are presumed to be "barmy" because of a Press campaign about speed cameras.

Yes, I stand by my 'ranting tabloid' comment.

Your Mr. Angry act is tiresome enough as it is. You might at least try to keep it original, rather than lifting chunks from the papers.

takenthe5thamendment
7th Feb 2004, 06:56
Detox is one thing, though I know a perfectly sensible girl who has been on and off Heroin for the last 8 years. She simply can't help herself, after trying some at a party when she was 17. She works as a nurse, so understands all of the physiological and psychological effects, yet still can't but help herself when she is down or in a certain mood. She's hardly the sort of person you'd think of as an addict...

I would imagine that she will be a user all or most of her life.


I'm SURE our governing body - The Nursing and Midwifery Council, would be more than interested in this information.


According to our Code of Professional Conduct -

''As Registered Nurse, Health Visitor or Midwife you must

* Act in such a way that justifies the trust and confidence the public have in you.

* Uphold and enhance the good reputation of the professions.

AND

*You must behave in a way that upholds the reputations of the professions.
Behaviour that compromises this reputation may call your registration into question even if it is not directly connected to your professional practice.''


This 'nurse' needs reporting and needs to be removed from working in an environment where Controlled Drugs are accessible! :mad:

Parapunter
7th Feb 2004, 17:40
VFE that is indeed a tragic story & I confess not only have I never used heroin, nor do I ever intend to, but I am a victim of the consequences, infact on more than one occasion.

I accept everything you say about the nature of the drug & I think your proposal is an excellent one, and I am reminded of the old saying: if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

However, you haven't persuaded me of the need to keep heroin illegal. I think there is a distinction to be made between the legality of heroin & the availabilty of it. By this I mean that if you are unlucky/stupid enough to become addicted to it, then there should be a way to obtain it under state control with a strict view to being weaned off it & everything that goes with that type of treatment.

The other approach is blanket availability & that may well lead to experimentation & an increase in addicts which is clearly undesirable. My notion is simply to stop the criminalisation of tortured souls & the criminal behaviour that goes hand in hand with it.

Those who do not want to be helped or lack the will to fight problems will always exist but throwing them in with the other type who slipped & fell serves no part of society.

Chaffers
7th Feb 2004, 18:43
She is a nurse now takenthe5thamendment, but whether or not she is able to kick the habit entirely is purely speculation on my part.

VFE
7th Feb 2004, 18:44
By this I mean that if you are unlucky/stupid enough to become addicted to it, then there should be a way to obtain it under state control with a strict view to being weaned off it & everything that goes with that type of treatment.
The NHS currently has Methadone for this purpose. An oral opioid drug used for pain therapy and to treat heroin addiction. Methadone maintenance therapy is used to prevent withdrawal symptoms by administering a small dose of methadone on a regular (e.g., daily) basis.

Obviously it ain't as satisfying as the real macoy but if an addict wishes to get off the stuff he/she has to make that decision and accept some hardship. Again, there are no easy options once someone is hooked.

VFE.

WeatherJinx
7th Feb 2004, 19:21
Parapunter

Well put. Nice to see our debates occasionally pushing the envelope of the possible, as opposed to the usual (however eloquently argued, VFE) arguments for maintaining the status quo.

Are the rest of you people really suggesting that the present situation is acceptable?:rolleyes:

Grainger
8th Feb 2004, 21:56
Hey U_R;

Take a look at some of the other posters here.

Never mind how the thread got started, everyone else is managing to have an educated debate, whereas you seem more interested in name-calling.

If you find my threads tiresome, then don't read them.

Now VFE has kindly pointed out that opiates are made available in the form of methadone, which is the currently accepted form of rehabilitation treatment.

One of the things that I work on is medical equipment and techniques to make the diagnosis of addiction and administration of methadone more efficient and less traumatic for those seeking help. Trying to get funding to develop this is like getting blood out of a stone so yes it does make me angry to see comments like Mr Brunstrom's which are no help whatsoever to the people struggling to cope in underfunded treatment centres.

Now I have repeated my call for more investment in treatment and rehabilitation. Can we please talk about that ?

VFE
8th Feb 2004, 22:32
Grainger,

You will probably find that you're talking to yourself on this one. The reasons this thread has failed to take off as expected can be attributed to the lack of viable suggestions put forward from those "seeking to push the envelope". WeatherJinx' rather retiring post regarding the course of events is good proof.

WeatherJinx,

The usual group who enjoy the PPRuNe thrill of literary boxing have been noticably quiet when returning any formed ideas to my posts. This to my mind shows capitulation. By all means throw ideas around here, that is indeed a positive thing, but please don't lay the reasons for the stagnation of debate at my doorstep simply because I provided information which stumps many arguments. That kind of hackneyed apathetic attitude normally displayed by Binoculars fools nobody into thinking you have the superior answer. That air of moral high ground gained by staying quiet is about as childish as it gets.

Thank you.

VFE.

WeatherJinx
9th Feb 2004, 00:17
Whoaaa there, VFE

I'm not looking to hold a verbal boxing match with you or anybody else. In fact, I was complimenting you on your reasonably-argued case for the status quo and Parapunter, who was exploring the possibilities.

I happen to think the status quo is not an option. It's alright people like us pronouncing from our cosy middle class environs about drugs, but the fact is that the narcotics trade remains one of the worlds greatest evils; and one which we do little or nothing about.

From the 419 emails which we all laugh about, to the Colombian barons in their mega-yachts, this trade supports a vicious economy, the detritus of which we rarely contemplate - broken or lost lives of users, victims of crime, abuse of women and children, people-trafficking, prostitution, summary executions, extortion - you name it - this is an economy that brings untold wealth to a few evil bastards, obtained by total disregard for the vulnerable souls they exploit.

Perhaps 'legitimising' the trade to some degree, thereby freezing out the organised crime, together with genuine help for those that have fallen and aggressive action against those sitting pretty at the top of this sh*t-heap, might help change things? Perhaps. But I know that laissez faire will not.

Jx

surely not
9th Feb 2004, 00:41
Ok this will probably get me shot at from several quarters................. but...............in my simple mind I cannot see that simply legalising the illegal drug industry will harm those currently at the top of the pile, the drug barons.

They are not going to throw their hands up and say 'Ok now it's legal I'm off to poverty and life long struggle'. surely they will just set up legitimate operations which continue to make them great wealth?

Sure they will have to worry about Health and Safety, quality control and a few other restrictions which are faced by Legit businesses, but I cannot believe they will walk away from the source of their power. If anything their influence will grow as they will be providing a massive tax revenue to whichever country they operate in.

Meanwhile back on the street lives are ruined at all levels of society.

I agree that only through education, provision of effective rehab and treatment centres, and a change in societies reaction to drugs similar to that which has reduced the acceptability of cigarrettes, will the problem improve.

So which Political party is going to be brave enough to place increased spending of money for a compassionate solution of drug issues on their agenda?

I can't wait to read the outraged response from many Pprune regulars if that were to happen!!

McIce
9th Feb 2004, 08:36
For those of you such as our Welsh Chief Mr Brunstrim who think legalising drugs in this country is the answer, I think you have to look at Holland for the answer.

The legalisation of certain drugs does not lower your crime rate, you merely become a dumping ground for all sorts of sh..te. I quote EU figures from a couple of years ago Amsterdam has the highest crime rates per person of population for street robbery, housebreaking (burglary in Engerland), theft from motor vehicles and numerous other reasonably small misdemeanours.

Legalise drugs? I think you would need to do it world wide for it to be effective. Now we all don't agree on this relatively small forum, how could you manage the do this world wide.

squire
9th Feb 2004, 09:04
Methadone is a far more damaging substance than well refined heroin. Prostitution is a major area supported by the heroin industry as is pushing drugs. Legalisation or at least decriminalisation removes the power of very nasty people who have no feeling for you or your children. Education along with a well considered program of supply will have far more beneficial results to society as a whole. Yes some people will opt to use others will not, much like the euthanasia debate I support freedom of choice in all civil liberties providing your actions result in damage to no-one but yourself. Of course you should be fully informed of the ramifications. Heroin is undoubtably less damaging than alcohol to the body and government regulation of supply ensures clean product, some control and safe environment for users. But most importantly it totally removes the power of the true scum who currently devestate your society. The correlation between this and speed cameras is unworthy of comment. Any Dutch people care to comment?

Binoculars
9th Feb 2004, 11:08
The usual group who enjoy the PPRuNe thrill of literary boxing have been noticably quiet when returning any formed ideas to my posts. This to my mind shows capitulation. By all means throw ideas around here, that is indeed a positive thing, but please don't lay the reasons for the stagnation of debate at my doorstep simply because I provided information which stumps many arguments. That kind of hackneyed apathetic attitude normally displayed by Binoculars fools nobody into thinking you have the superior answer. That air of moral high ground gained by staying quiet is about as childish as it gets.

Well, well, I appear to have become VFE's public enemy number one. :bored: I have upset people by posting before, but never managed to upset anybody by NOT posting. :rolleyes:

Once upon a time there posted in these august halls a gentleman by the name of Tartan Gannet, a man of extremely firm views on just about everything. Though he chose to consider me as his personal enemy, I agreed with a lot of things he wrote, disagreed with a lot of others. The thing that did annoy me about him was his insistence on repeating his views ad nauseam in any thread even remotely connected to his pet peeves. Everybody in Pprune knew what he believed, it was rammed down our throats constantly.

VFE, you may or may not have noticed, while sneering at the "hackneyed apathetic attitude" I apparently normally display, that I tend not to repeat myself, partly because TG's habit annoyed me so much. This subject, like every other subject imaginable, has been covered before in Pprune. I made my opinions clear in that thread, and I see little point in repeating them here.

It was a generally thoughtful thread, with some excellent opinions. You will find it here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54240&perpage=15&highlight=heroin&pagenumber=1) . I commend it to you and all others interested in this subject. In the unlikely event that you, VFE, really are interested in my opinion, I make my first post on page three.

In the meantime, I suggest you stick to your beliefs and don't be distracted by your personal dislike of me.

VFE
9th Feb 2004, 22:27
That is fine Bino's.

What annoyed me (with a small 'a') was your first and only input to this thread. Posting critisism without offering an alternative view is one of my pet hates. Your meager input here explains nothing but hell, other posters might be flattered I seek their views. Your reference to a previous thread on the matter is appreciated but in fairness, who goes trawling through the back pages when replying to every thread?

Despite what you might think, I actually find your opinions interesting and informative. My rather obvious attempt at summoning you up here may be proof.

VFE.

MMEMatty
9th Feb 2004, 22:55
The main argument for legalising heroin is that it would take the dealers and crime bosses out of the loop. Firstly this should not be confused with getting rid of crime bosses, as even if they decide to give up selling brown they would turn to other activities. Prostitution, Illegal immigration / slavery, protection rackets, whatever, the point is they will still be around, doing nasty things.
Secondly, would it? again i come back to the fact that to legalise heroin means making it legal to buy at some price. All this means is that if anything the price of Heroin will come down, keeping these evil pushers in business. If the government charges 5 per wrap legally, these crime bosses will charge 2-3 say, undercutting and probably still making a profit. One only has to look at the numbers of illegal ciggies and amounts of people taking a booze cruise to calais to know that there is very little the government can do to stop legal drugs illegaly entering the country. Also, when you think how good pushers have got at importing into the country, i cant see that it will make a difference.

And in case anyone was curious, i have been a drug counsellor for the last 2 years in Stockton, an area with an extremely high rate of heroin abuse, experiencing first hand some of the problems that these people face. I hope none of you ever lose sight of the fact that drug addicts, no matter what they have done (and many have done things that they are extremely ashamed about) are still people, they once had hopes, dreams and ambitions the same as you, and many, if not most would want to get off the stuff if their brains and bodioes were not so deeply penetrated by the drugs.

Matty

squire
10th Feb 2004, 08:44
Sounds quite plausable except no criminal activity generates the revenue of drugs, particularly highly addictive ones. As to the government being undercut by drug dealers would you try and save 2 pounds for the sake of getting product that had been cut with Ajax? And lastly a major source of crime is people trying to get the money to pay huge money for something which does not hurt anyone else.............why not let them caveat emptor. I don't think anyone is suggesting a corner shop style of distribution but clearly the current situation is an unmitigated disaster unless you are a Lawyer, Policeman,Prison Officer, Drug counseller, Drug dealer, Pimp, or enjoy the services of Hookers, Rent boys or otherwise enjoy feeding from the weak and vulnerable.
So rather than lambast a suggestion which has some merits above the current situation, lets hear a better idea........I can't think of one, but the status quo is pitifully inadequate.