Drugs

[Twa Cairpets]

Reading an interesting book called "Flat Earth News", and there is a bit that has made me go "hmmm, cant see a flaw in the logic here, but intuitively feels wrong".

The premise is that heroin, in particular, in its pure form is relatively benign as far as drugs go, and that is what it is cut with that causes a lot of the health issues. I'm absolutely no expert on this, so don't know if its true or not.

Anyway, in summary, the point being made is that to try to restrict the distribution channels of heroin only has a detrimental effect on society, as market forces kick in and for every seizure, supply becomes restricted and prices go up. Therefore junkies need to get more cash to pay for it, and the societal costs in terms of crime increase.

I cant see an issue with this logic. The view the book takes is that like alcohol and cigarettes, the existence of the addiction to the drug cannot be un-invented, so it would be best to provide it through the state, in a pure form, and essentially cut out the criminal middle-man.

The costs in provision are more than outweighed by the reduction in cost of policing, enforcement, crime etc etc.

Is this hopelessly simplistic, or should it really be that simple if a government had the balls to go "this is the solution"?

[greenlex]

Licence it. Add a tax for a bit of income too. Everyones a winner. Folk that want/ need to use it. NHS could get a wedge to deal with the results of it. Go the full hogg and do it with all drugs.
Why are motorists taxed so much? I need my car to travel to work as there is no public transport available. Tax junkies and drop the price of petrol, road tax and VAT. Seems good to me.

[EH6 Hibby]

There is a three part programme on 4od called Our Drugs War which raises a lot of the same things that you are both saying, I found it really thought provoking.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/4od#3111530

[duncs]

Reading an interesting book called "Flat Earth News", and there is a bit that has made me go "hmmm, cant see a flaw in the logic here, but intuitively feels wrong".

The premise is that heroin, in particular, in its pure form is relatively benign as far as drugs go, and that is what it is cut with that causes a lot of the health issues. I'm absolutely no expert on this, so don't know if its true or not.

Anyway, in summary, the point being made is that to try to restrict the distribution channels of heroin only has a detrimental effect on society, as market forces kick in and for every seizure, supply becomes restricted and prices go up. Therefore junkies need to get more cash to pay for it, and the societal costs in terms of crime increase.

I cant see an issue with this logic. The view the book takes is that like alcohol and cigarettes, the existence of the addiction to the drug cannot be un-invented, so it would be best to provide it through the state, in a pure form, and essentially cut out the criminal middle-man.

The costs in provision are more than outweighed by the reduction in cost of policing, enforcement, crime etc etc.

Is this hopelessly simplistic, or should it really be that simple if a government had the balls to go "this is the solution"?

Fantastic book isn't it? But also rather scary! Think he is spot on in his analysis of the war against drugs in this country - illogical and not really helping anyone.

[Pretty Boy]

Reading an interesting book called "Flat Earth News", and there is a bit that has made me go "hmmm, cant see a flaw in the logic here, but intuitively feels wrong".

The premise is that heroin, in particular, in its pure form is relatively benign as far as drugs go, and that is what it is cut with that causes a lot of the health issues. I'm absolutely no expert on this, so don't know if its true or not.

Anyway, in summary, the point being made is that to try to restrict the distribution channels of heroin only has a detrimental effect on society, as market forces kick in and for every seizure, supply becomes restricted and prices go up. Therefore junkies need to get more cash to pay for it, and the societal costs in terms of crime increase.

I cant see an issue with this logic. The view the book takes is that like alcohol and cigarettes, the existence of the addiction to the drug cannot be un-invented, so it would be best to provide it through the state, in a pure form, and essentially cut out the criminal middle-man.

The costs in provision are more than outweighed by the reduction in cost of policing, enforcement, crime etc etc.

Is this hopelessly simplistic, or should it really be that simple if a government had the balls to go "this is the solution"?

Heroin in it's purest form is diamorphine, which is used in many NHS hospitals as a painkiller. Britain is one of the few countries still to use diamorphine as opposed to the much more widely used and available morphine. Whilst there are obviously still addiction issues, hallucinations and potential respitarory arrest; in carefully managed doses diamorphine is a fairly benign drug for use in the short and long term.

My view is, and always has been, that the reason most people don't take drugs is nothing to do with the legality of it but more to do with a personal choice. If heroin was legalised tommorow i would confidently predict there would be very few people decided they suddenly wanted to start using it. I've experimented with all sorts of drugs in the past and can honestly say that the legality of said drugs never crossed my mind at all when i used them. In the same way if all of those drugs were legalised tommorow i would have absolutely no desire to use them again. I made the decision to stop for health reasons, it was not through a fear of breaking the law.