1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BBC: Why is heroin killing so many people?

Discussion in 'SMB' started by Some Random Guy, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. gillythedilf

    gillythedilf Striker

    I'm passionate about knocking the beak out for £40 snots.

    I've never read the thread but the usual nut jobs who havnt lived amongst /dealt with these shit bags will come on with some pathetic excuse for it .
     
    Some Random Guy likes this.
  2. the boot

    the boot Full Back

    Nice one. I deffo understand where you coming from tbh am only going off a lads word who worked in the needle exchange and my ex Mrs who is a pharmacy technician and gave out the meds to the addicts. (People at ground level lets say)

    Can I ask you and smb members a couple of questions about addiction?
    Do you like or even have a dependency on alcohol? May answer is yes.
    Would you accept said alcohol if it was free from the government?
     
  3. super noodles

    super noodles Midfield

    It's absolutely tragic, isn't it? People's main argument against giving people safer access to drugs is basically sentimental. Or at least appears to be. The sort of attitude that says drug users are bad people who don't deserve help is the sort of thinking that prevents sensible drug legislation, and ends up turning small time users into addicts, because they won't seek help, and pushes more dangerous drugs into public hands because they're often easier to access than the safer alternatives.

    The strongest anti drug attitudes often make the problems worse. The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad
     
  4. haway

    haway Striker

    Yes, I like alcohol. I'm not physically dependent on it.

    And it depends. If the government was giving out free pints in pubs then yes, I would take it. If I was going into a Drs surgery to be injected alcohol so I was intoxicated but wasn't amongst my friends chatting shit and didn't get to taste it etc then no.

    But if someone is seriously alcohol dependent then they should be tapered off it by medical staff safely.

    But comparing heroin addiction to me knocking back 7 pints on a Saturday is a false equivalence.
     
  5. gavinmcant

    gavinmcant Winger

    Not quite. Listen I'm not completely against prescribing heroin but in my experience, most addicts use as much as possible and I just think they'd also be buying street gear. I appreciate other countries models may suggest it's successful but that's. It to say it would work here. I don't dislike anyone I've met just because of their addiction, a lot are lovely people and I get on well with them. Some aren't very nice but you can say that about any demographic.
    I don't have a solution but I can tell you that targeting dealers is way, way down the list of priorities of most police forces because they're focussed on safeguarding vulnerable people, trafficking, modern slavery etc.
    And I think that's a mistake and allowing heroin and other drugs to become more available and dealing it a relatively safe and profitable occupation.
     
    theinediblebulk likes this.
  6. You're not getting it at all are you. When they did the soft drugs/hard drugs split, it was because they had a serious heroin problem, not a weed problem, and they wanted to focus on that. A main reason for their heroin problem was simply Rotterdam. Tonnes of the fucking stuff was being shipped there and it was effectively the distribution hub for Europe. The police simply weren't going to spend time on weed but legislation at that time was unthinkable due to attitudes of the public. Same cry you hear today "Can't make drugs legal". They couldn't, so they fudged it. It's no great secret that it was basically the police not doing anything about it as it was a waste of their time and resources compared to other problems they had, namely heroin. And that fudged system has stayed in place ever since. However, and this is the point you're not getting, is that the fudged system they did put in place wasn't because they had a problem with weed, it was a side effect of their solution to dealing with the heroin issue.

    TBF, the Dutch should have got on top of this years ago. I was hearing that from coffee shop owners who wanted legislation when I lived there in the late 90's, so it's nowt new. It's only taken the Government 20 years to catch up with what people in the industry have been saying, so it's at least a start from them.
     
  7. the boot

    the boot Full Back

    No your right it's not.
    But also asking any addict to get there fix in a surgery or any other environment than the normal must be hard work would you agree? So quite rightly you would not do it even for free. Taking into account your not an alcoholic.
    So firstly the will as to be there?

    Which if it is the programmes in place should surely work?
    In my opinion and my small and second hand knowledge of the subject the current programmes don't work. All you will be doing is changing the substitute (methadone) for the real thing.
     
  8. JonMc

    JonMc Striker

    And the point that you're not getting is that this little side conversation started when you said...Strangely enough, if you look at Holland again, they never developed a Spice problem on a scale like ours. Wonder if the fact you can buy weed legally had owt to do with it.

    Heroin wasn't part of this topic. Spice was...and I don't want to see cannabis legalized, carrying with it it's own psychotropic problems just because morons decide they just have to have some kind of buzz and they don't mind where it comes from even if it's from coming some china man's kitchen. Somewhere personal responsibility has to come into this and it's not the fault that cannabis is illegal that kids want to put whatever shite they can get hold of into their bodies.

    Coffee shop owners might have wanted legalization twenty years ago but that doesn't mean that they should get legalization.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  9. Thats fair play mate.

    I believe an alternative model would reduce a lot of drug related problems. However, I don't think we should just bring it in tomorrow. I do think we should be piloting it in half a dozen authorities around the country over 2-5 years and see what the effects are.
     
    haway and the boot like this.
  10. haway

    haway Striker

    Heading in that direction, fortunately. Most the HR campaigns I've been involved in have been well supported by the police, health services, the managers of the site etc. It's politicians who invariably seem antagonistic to them.
     
  11. Bagpuss

    Bagpuss Striker

    Its easily available anyway, its just where you get it from and how you fund it that is the issue for society.

    On the flip side of this alcohol undoubtedly kills more people in the UK, costs the NHS far more, results in far more collateral damage to families, children, innocent victims of drunken violence etc.

    If you gave me a choice of which drug to get rid of then booze would be that drug all day long.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  12. That's understandable, they are the ones that are running the risk of losing their seats. These things can take ages because even with a massive stack of evidence politicians need to consider public opinion.

    Unfortunately public opinion is often counter intuitive, as has been seen in this thread.
     
    theinediblebulk and haway like this.
  13. Shoot me down for using legal instead of tolerated. In all respects of actual policy and being arrested for it, it's effectively legal. That was the term I used and everyone else did in the years I lived there so that's why I use it now. I'm sorry if that's not up to your perfect standards. And I couldn't care less what you think about legislation as you just branded all weed smokers morons. Happily, the Dutch are more sensible than you and might just be getting their arses into gear to sort out a long overdue situation. Feb 2017.

    Cannabis is currently illegal in the Netherlands, however, Dutch lawmakers today approved legislation that would permit the professional cultivation of marijuana.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...w-about-smoking-marijuana-in-the-netherlands/

    I seem to remember you saying Holland's drug policies were pointless. How do you square that with their success in massively reducing the amount of heroin both available and being consumed back in the 70's?
     
  14. gavinmcant

    gavinmcant Winger

    If nothing else, the piloting authorities would be soaking up a lot of users heading their way from non piloting areas! But yup, worth a try, why not. On reflection, I suppose if people genuinely wanting to come off it or at least regulate their use benefitted from it, the others who just live a life of taking heroin then rock, heroin and crack and have no interest in changing because they love it, might become a minority who could be targeted by the justice system, locked up and put on programmes.

    It's utterly pointless criminalising cannabis users in this country because there's so many people use it. No police force is pursuing people who smoke it and the only cultivation aspect they're interested in is that which uses potentially trafficked Vietnamese to farm it or organised crime groups involved. Legalise it and those two issues go away. If there was a referendum on legalising cannabis I suspect it would be an overwhelming yes and at some point, a government has to recognise that they have to go with what people want.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  15. JonMc

    JonMc Striker

    Exactly. They didn't just relax police policy towards prosecutions against cannabis users, they made it into a cottage industry that got out of control and that is an admission of the failure of creating a mass market.

    County Durham police have in effect negated that by openly stating that they aren't coming after people who have a little grow tent in the back bedroom so that they can get on with the more serious crimes including serious drug crime. So what's the difference? Get growing in the DH area and no one will stop you...as long as you don't take the piss. They just aren't creating an industry, that's all.
     
  16. Why would the pilot areas soak up a lot of users?

    You wouldn't just be turning up and getting free heroin, just as I couldn't mooch to the pharmacy now and get a dose of subutex.

    If Sunderland's public health team just said "fuck it, we aren't paying for supervised consumption any more, it's too expensive" South Tyneside isn't going to start picking up those clients.

    You would get some people moving to to the LA, a bit like a really shitty catchment area. Would it be a huge amount? I guess we'd find out with the pilot. :p
     
  17. the boot

    the boot Full Back

    Maybe someone should ask the heroin addicts?

    Just a thought like.
     
  18. gavinmcant

    gavinmcant Winger

    If I was a user from Newcastle and somewhere in Cumbria started on the pilot, I'd be across there to get some for free that's clean and I imagine decent. Why wouldn't I? I suppose that's assuming getting heroin is my primary focus in life which it is in my experience. I'm not saying that isn't something that couldn't be overcome but my guess is that residents in that area might object to a likely influx of users, justified or not.
     
  19. So you just have a caveat saying to eligible you need to have lived in the borough for X months/years.
     
    Frijj likes this.
  20. Lonz

    Lonz Striker

    You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
     

Share This Page