@barnesbq - took the words right out of my mouth.
@sevlow - if you mean cunts then have the courage to say cunts. Otherwise use another word. I don't like posh cunts either, but we were talking about the filthy scroungers outside Tesco, not them.
Where I come from the polite word is conts.
There's nothing polite about it, but if you're going to use it, it's polite to use it properly.
I’m certainly not preaching about chemical abuse! But I would suggest that the point at which it is not legitimate to spend your money on those things is the point at which you become a dependent on the support of society in order to fund it. I would argue that no-one has that right – to make that choice is to fail in one’s ethical obligations to society. If state & society are providing ways out of that situation – shelters, council housing, free food, drug rehabilitation, counselling - one is morally obliged to accept the offer.
So yes, to be direct about it, I do think that society can insist that that people accept that provision rather than harm society through permanent dependence. And I do think that society can mandate the state to compel people to accept that provision, just as it can mandate the state to compel people not to steal or use violence. Given that drug addicts are – by dint of their chemical dependence – often incapable of making a rational decision I think that the argument for this is redoubled. Not to mention that many of these sufferers are also mentally ill and in need of personal care rather than being kept barely alive on the street. Does this approach not minimise harm to the individual and society as a whole?
Given that the alternative to this is maintaining the highly vulnerable and afflicted in a state of permanent misery I refuse to accept that this is not a compassionate approach, and I strongly affirm that it is precisely what I would want to happen to me if I ended up in that situation.
Wrong name again Arkady
Shit, corrected thankyou. I'm not taking the piss. Name of an old pal who's been on my mind lately. Arky
I think that’s the first time anyone has accused the TESCO-campers of being lightweights.
I'm with ADGS on this one too. These people are for heroin what lager louts are for booze. Unable to consume a substance, of which they know potency and effects, without making a nuisance of themselves. Although heroin louts tend to express themselves more in a passive aggressive way.
I'll bet 10,000 British troops in Afghanistan, risking their lives to keep that shite out of the country might make up a third, rather larger team.
Nonetheless, the Afghan warlords fund the oppression of their people and the killing of our troops by producing more of the stuff than anyone in the world. So next time you shoot up, bare in mind what these complete dick heads are doing with the profits. Back home, its tearing apart the fabric of our society - its not just keeping the paving slabs outside Tescos warm 24/7.
I don't entirely disagree, but I dread to think of the healthcare burden on the NHS, with A&E departments full of junkies taking legal heroin etc; all just to stop bad people making money.
And the Taliban need their asses kicking for a whole load of other reasons besides.
ehm ... actually its the US that encouraged Afganistan to go into heroin production to fund arms when they were fighting Soviet Russia ... lol
Eh?! who suggested that if it were legalized everyone would start taking it?
Not everyone drinks or smokes either but huge chunks of the NHS's budget is spent dealing with a small minority who either can't handle it or are otherwise physically affected by the effects.
And as if by magic a study on price elasticity of Heroin pops into my inbox courtesy of Freakonomics
Basically it is pretty elastic. So if it is made legal, and therefore cheaper, one would expect use to go up greatly assuming supply could cope. It being illegal also matters - if there were no legal consequences users would up their dosage.
@WillM I make no such extrapolation. You say that without support from the comment you are quoting.
I'm assuming it is cheaper but it might not be (although it would seem odd that it wouldn't be) and I say nothing about there being wider use, merely more use. You have added, presumably in your head, that I said more people would use heroin.
Indeed government could use taxes to ration but as it appears to be elastic it would indeed discourage. My base assumption is that illegality is a deterrent in all things, including heroin use. I'd be pretty amazed if there weren't more people using as well as more use. Probably worth studying other examples of decriminalisation for a sense of impact.
For the record though I can't think of a stupider plan than legalising heroin. For a start every junkie in the EU would be straight on a train to St Pancras.
Why would anyone want to legalise a drug that at best makes you semi-comatose and dribbly and at worst kills you? It doesn't even have the sociable effect of alcohol or ecstasy. Mind you I don't really get the attraction of ecstasy either, having never wanted to take something that would make me want to hug total wankers.
Wonder whether they'll work out how to make this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!