Re: Expert commission calls for total overhaul of UK drugs legislation
Quote:
Back to Johnny using clean heroin, he, if he was in Switzerland, could determine his dose by himself (like 3x day 200-350mg) i donīt know, but most seem hitting the 350mg/day (maybe 3x a day i donīt know), that is not quite a third of a dose that an addict would kill, and with pharma grade, I donīt see, the study proves, thereīre in fact less, namely zero and the individuals ususally find their ways into normal employment.
Why should one gettign a smack in hospital conditions drop-dead?thatīs plain old predjudice, like saying all heroin-users are just wrecks lying in a corner of the station, or will unavodably end there.
I think you're missing my point. First of all, another distinction - I'm not talking about the average, relatively under control occasional user, from whatever social background; these are not the people who would benefit from or be necessarily offered pharmaceutical Heroin. I'm talking about the people most at risk here - the junkies. Any prejudice is based on experience, my own, my friends & that of junkies I have known - I'm going to tell you how it is in Britain. British Junkies are a breed apart. They will do anything for a fix, & will lie about the amount they are using to get a bigger fix of methadone or dihydrocodeine when they go into rehab. They would do the same if H were legally available for them on prescription, at least until their habit & lifestyle were under control again.
Maybe Swiss junkies are a more honest breed than British junkies, but I can guarantee that if yer average British junkie seeking help either of his own accord or because the law demands it were allowed to self prescribe on the basis of what he was getting off the street without medical intervention, he'd be dead within the week, & so would half his mates. Figures vary for the purity of British street heroin - anywhere between 1 & 98% I've seen quoted from a quick Scroogle search, with the mean purity varying from 42 - 68 % in any given year, with the higher purity going to the higher income bracket. The regional, even daily fluctuations in quality are huge, as different dealers chop & change the cut to meet profit margins, & sometimes (it does happen!) stop their clientele from overdosing. If Johnny went from this situation, using whatever amount of the shit he was using from the street, to using the same amount, gram for gram, of pharmaceutical grade heroin without the maths being done on exactly how much heroin he was actually using he - would - over - dose. The reason people don't die in these programs is because they are supervised, & do not self-prescribe - doses are carefully worked out based on the actual amount of heroin the addict was using, avoiding
Quote:
gettign a smack in hospital conditions drop-dead
.
Like I said, there is a distinction to be made between users & junkies. I have no prejudice against users. I do have a prejudice against junkies - I've known too many over the last 20 years not to. Junkies have a prejudice against junkies for Pete's sake! I can't speak for anywhere else, but smack in Britain turns people ugly. Crossing the line from user to junkie is not inevitable, but with all the best will in the world too many people in Britain cross the line from using to being used, & I do not believe that legalising it alone will change that. Things have to change in Britain at a much deeper level, & to believe otherwise is dangerously naive. Unfortunately, I do not see those changes happening soon - we have over 25 years of right wing near despotic rule, mismanagement & rabid free-market philosophy to buck against, with money that could be pushed into making peoples lives more tolerable without the blanket of smack disappearing into guns & missiles while hospitals & schools are privatised, giving immense bonuses & pay-rises for those who do not deserve them while people work 50 hour weeks for not much above minimum wage which disappears in disproportionate taxes, if they can find work at all. This is why smack in Britain is so dangerous, & this thread is about Britain is it not?. We have a society that is prime for addiction, that has bred several generations of people with not very much to look forward to, with addiction now becoming a family heirloom. I'll say it again, legalisation alone is not going to change this. Even if it were legalised, does anyone really think that any government would allow people to freely experiment with it, running the risk of becoming addicted in order to obtain their freely prescribed fix? Without some fundamental changes that would take years, maybe decades of consistency from successive governments to have full benefits, the black market would still exist, & that is where the addicts are going to continue to come from for some time to come.
Re: Expert commission calls for total overhaul of UK drugs legislation
I see your point, but do you have any comparision, to the `brititsh junky breedī, using medical heroin?
The doses in Switzerland are self-determined, they can choose how much they need, and theyīll get it, until itīs not a deadly overdose or somen amount to sell on the streets ( quote:"they have no problem with it, because they no for sure the dose given with them, will go straight up their arm).
So maybe the arguement of the lying english junky is the plus, because you know what he needs and give it to him, itīs what makes them predictable.
Maybe the social-psychological background in legal heroin would be like "-Oh, it`s not that big of a challenge and not a form of protesting against something or dropping out of the social system anymore, despite, it doesnīt look that nice when youīre heavily addicted and those who bertayed themselves are dead now otr nearly died, so thatīs not such an advantage by all means",
then, maybe a change will take place in a better way and I donīt think this would then be going to take a decade -in fact, I believe the opiates are more numbing to societies needs, while theyīre strictly illegal.
Plus all the money saved on prosecution would, as you say, go to the health care, schools, social intrastructural build-up etc .. .
Location: Everywhere. Consciousness is transcendent of locality.
Age: 22
Posts: 588
Re: Alcohol and tobacco are deadlier than ecstasy, UK report warns
It's good an all but I'm quite sure the government have already dismissed the idea of this classification system actually being implemented. How could they possibly determin that cannabis is more harmful than solvent abuse, not only is it stupid but it is clearly a lie.
Re: Alcohol and tobacco are deadlier than ecstasy, UK report warns
Yeah, it would certainly be interesting to see more detailed results from this study and find out why drugs placed where they did. Some certainly don't make sense to me. Although it is hopeful to see reconsideration although i can't believe it would actually lead to re-categorizing of the drugs and we've known that alcohol and tobacco are some of the most dangerous drugs out there...
Re: Alcohol and tobacco are deadlier than ecstasy, UK report warns
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkey rhubarb
Yeah, it would certainly be interesting to see more detailed results from this study and find out why drugs placed where they did. Some certainly don't make sense to me. Although it is hopeful to see reconsideration although i can't believe it would actually lead to re-categorizing of the drugs and we've known that alcohol and tobacco are some of the most dangerous drugs out there...
Well it is good to see talk at least of reclassification. Current classifications are so irrational as to be laughable. But at least it is introducing the possibility of questioning the current classification. What we need is to introduce further elements into the discussion (Is there a distinction between use and abuse, as people make with alcohol use? Should there be tolerance of responsible adult use, if it allows better prevention of access to drugs to minors?). Crack open that can, and watch the worms squirm!
Re: Alcohol and tobacco are deadlier than ecstasy, UK report warns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky Walker
It's good an all but I'm quite sure the government have already dismissed the idea of this classification system actually being implemented. How could they possibly determin that cannabis is more harmful than solvent abuse, not only is it stupid but it is clearly a lie.
I'd have to read over the first report again (you should check it out too), but I think they emphasised the emergence of latent psychoses and harm to society in their rankings...
03-04-2007, 15:36
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
