Opinions - Heroin and the State

[FredChobblers]

Hi,

I was reading 'The Thread of Shame' last night. The kind of unfortunate things people do raised a few questions:

1) I was wondering if SWIYs that are addicted think it is understandable that the Government has policy (whether effective or not) that aims to prevent people coming into contact with the drug in the first place.

2) Are there SWIY's that would have rather the State's policy could have prevented them ever coming into contact with the drug?

I know that some may feel that a lot of the conduct in the thread of shame could have been avoided by legalising heroin, but I wonder. Are there any SWIYs that would consider there is a changing of someone's personality and outlook that occurs while addicted to this drug that allows things such as in the 'Thread of Shame' to happen? Or would SWIYs consider it being a product purely of the desperation to get hold of the drug when in danger of rattling?

Reputation Comments on this post:

good questions

[Junkhead23]

Good question. Personally when SWIM started IVing this was when the trouble started and SWIM started shoplifting and hadn't shoplifted or stole anything before in his life. SWIM had never been in trouble with police. SWIM thinks that the urge for heroin somehow overtakes your morals and that desperation leads to stupid things. Also being with people who commit crime on a regular basis almost made it seem quite normal to SWIM to steal.

SWIM thinks it is the people that you are coupled with the addiction that also push you over that line that previously you would not have crossed. Funnily enough SWIM is currently writing a book about drugs in general and this is one of the things SWIM is looking into in depth.

SWIM doesn't think the state can really intervene. It is a persons own choice to take drugs. Maybe if they could stop the supply but they can't so there is no way it can be done.

[FredChobblers]

Ah, I find it very interesting the SWIY mentions preventing supply, as this is in my opinion the best way to tackle heroin addiction in the long term. I noticed a few SWIYs saying they were thinking about taking the opportunity to kick in the 'Heroin Drought in the UK' thread. I wonder if legalising and having a constant legitimate supply might make it harder to shake a long term dependance for some SWIYs?

I would debate the ability of the State to prevent supply. Sweden reports great success in minimising opiate use through firm applications of policies that outlaw use and heavily penalise the suppliers. I just don't think the Police in the UK have the teeth or the Government support to do a similar thing.

The impression that I get is there are a lot of SWIYs that want to be at the end of their addiction that might welcome a way of preventing supply and reducing availabilty in order to make rehab more likely to be succesful. On the other hand that are some SWIYs that I guess would like to continue enjoying the drug and would oppose it. However, the impression I get is that the biggest supporters for the status quo are the SWIYs that generally only use softer drugs and are worried that a clamp down on harder drugs will cut off their weed supply. I somehow think some of these particular SWIYs do not view heroin as the potent and addictive drug that it is, and it all gets a bit caught up in the marijuana 'legalise it' argument.

I am thinking out loud a bit here, I do not want to cause any offense. I would be interested in your opinions.

[drug-bot]

1. no, its a lifestyle and recreational choice whether to use heroin or not and no goverment should get involved and criminalize it, think about two of the most dangerous drugs out there, alcohol and tobbaco both are legal and kill many more people per year by percent not number than heroin. it all has to do with societys view on a particular drug and there comfortability with it, alcohol was a staple in european culture for thousands of years and even christianity legitimizes it through the sacrement of the 'blood of christ', and tobacco while intially illegal in several european countrys gained acceptance over time (remember tobacco had about 500 years in european consciouness, ever since columbus brought it back from the americas). now look at heroin, its only been around for about a hundred years, and it was around only about 20yrs when the temperance movement finally banned alcohol (in the u.s) and took aim at other drugs that made people feel good, so even when alcohol prohibition was overturned the prohibitonists took aim at other drugs (including of course heroin) the pubic knew little about since they were new and established in western culture, so the prohibitionists had could easily lie about these new drugs and make them illegal.

2. no, swims glad he had the oppurtunity to feel the beauty and raw pleasure of an i.v heroin rush, and feel the pain prohibition drug laws had on him and others like him (he feels wiser for the experience). heres a good example- you call a child a worthless piece of shit enough and soon enough the child will believe it and act out in socially unacceptable ways, same with heroin addicts call them pieces of shit and criminals long enough and there gonna believe it and act out.

Originally Posted by FredChobblers

I noticed a few SWIYs saying they were thinking about taking the opportunity to kick in the 'Heroin Drought in the UK' thread. I wonder if legalising and having a constant legitimate supply might make it harder to shake a long term dependance for some SWIYs?

then theyd be in the same boat as alcoholics.

[Junkhead23]

The thing is and SWIM is sure that SWIY will have heard this before an addict needs to kick a habit by themselves not be forced into it as it simply will not work. Stopping the supply is one thing but that does not stop the fact that morphine and other such opiates are available on prescription.

Addicts by their nature are very productive in obtaining what they need regardless of the substance so they would simply turn to using methadone, morphine, codeine or benzos recreationally.

As for drug laws in the UK being lax on heroin dealing are SWIY kidding?

Put this way:

A heroin dealer can get an unlimited fine and also 20 years in prison. Now to put that in perspective you get 25years for first degree murder. I regard that as quite a punishment. Also just for possession the maximum is 7years. 7 years for possessing a substance which is meant to use yourself? Is that not a little overboard?

Are the prison's not full enough?

If a person want's to quit they will quit regardless of whether it is available or not. Junkies often say they want to quit and do the exact opposite. SWIM is guilty of it himself so do not listen chances are they are lying to themselves.

[FredChobblers]

The laws are complicit with the UN requirements, but maybe SWIY would consider that the courts can be very 'understanding' when it comes to heroin addiction? My local paper reports in the court section the same names avoiding incarceration for drugs possesion and drugs related offenses week in week out. Often addiction seems to be a very useful mitigating circumstance. I could be wrong here, SWIYs may have a better picture, moving in those circles. Have any SWIYs heard of 7 year terms actually being handed out for possesion? I would guess such a thing would be very rare, especially if it were a first offense, but again I could be wrong.

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by FredChobblers

The laws are complicit with the UN requirements, but maybe SWIY would consider that the courts can be very 'understanding' when it comes to heroin addiction? My local paper reports in the court section the same names avoiding incarceration for drugs possesion and drugs related offenses week in week out. Often addiction seems to be a very useful mitigating circumstance. I could be wrong here, SWIYs may have a better picture, moving in those circles. Have any SWIYs heard of 7 year terms actually being handed out for possesion? I would guess such a thing would be very rare, especially if it were a first offense, but again I could be wrong.

If it were for first offence would SWIY not find that a little harsh? It would really depend on how much a person had on them. Imprisoning someone is not the way to help and if anything commits an addict to a life of crime as there is no chance of employment. Is this right that even when someone is clean that they are marked for the rest of their life? Addiction is a good mitigating circumstance because addiction drives people to do things which they normally would not. I agree that some were thieves long before the took heroin and some are just plain criminals but not all. SWIM was took to court not so long ago for shoplifting. Something that SWIM has never done before and SWIM got given 9months probation and that was SWIMs first offence. If SWIM commits a further crime SWIM will be sent to prison. That doesn't seem that lax to SWIM.

Does SWIY take anything?

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post

[aerozeppelin123]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

As for drug laws in the UK being lax on heroin dealing are SWIY kidding?

Put this way:

A heroin dealer can get an unlimited fine and also 20 years in prison. Now to put that in perspective you get 25years for first degree murder. I regard that as quite a punishment. Also just for possession the maximum is 7years. 7 years for possessing a substance which is meant to use yourself? Is that not a little overboard?

The maximum penalty is in fact life imprisonment, not 20 years! However, maximum penalties are pretty meaningless - it is the penalties that are actually handed out on a regular basis that are more of an indicator of how crimes are punished. And in this sense, the UK is quite lax in comparison to a lot of other countries.

I don't have any figures to hand but from what I have read in the news and such, small-time heroin dealers seem to usually get no more than a couple of years for a first offence. Often not even that. Compare that to countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia etc where they will often get many years, death penalty or might just get shot in the head by police there and then. But that's not to say that harsh penalties are of any use, as those countries still have plenty of drugs/drug use, sometimes more than countries with more relaxed laws.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good post

[FredChobblers]

I wonder if the SWIYs might understand why there is such a public stigma against heroin and crack addicts in particular? For instance, small businessmen in my area really suffer from the loses they suffer in theft and fraud from local addicts. I do not think it is an unjustified prejudice.

I myself think that if a SWIY commits a crime, then they should be treated like anybody else. It may be a craving to get money for a drug that causes it, but there surely can be very few SWIYs that would be unaware when they began their addiction that they could end up doing those things? In my view that is where the decision is made.

Would any SWIYs see sense in a kind of compromise where SWIYs traded some of their liberties to live in and restrict their movements to an area designated for their habits? I am not talking about a ghetto or camp. The idea would be to provide a place for people who wish to live that lifestyle, and give them and opportunity to form their own local economy. I am thinking of a kind of addict's Milton Keynes, but with a policed border. Its creation would correspond with a distinct increase in the application of the laws outside of the area. It would then give people a legitimate option to live that way if they wished.

I'm really not talking about some kind of NAZI ghetto here. I mean, they could make it a principality or something. Maybe situate it on one of the former mining areas in the valleys or something?

My ideas about this are a little leftfield, but I do actually have a slightly more odd question I am holding back as I am nervous to ask it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Sorry but that is the most horrible thing Ive seen on this board

[Junkhead23]

Is your name Hitler and are you a fascist? Or are SWIY just an internet troll? Addicts are treated the same in law as anyone else in fact they are possibly treat worse. The rich are the one's who can buy themselves out of trouble not penniless addicts. Do SWIY realise how many addicts are in prison? No one person when they start taking heroin believes they will start using it regularly or even think they will get addicted.

A comparison I would give is this. Many people will often say to a man or a woman that a partner abusive or not is bad for them. The person in question will not listen to their friends in some sort of effort to prove everone wrong. It's all about psychology trying to prove everyone wrong when they more often than not are right.

In SWIMs case all of SWIMs friends told him to stop as it will get hold of SWIM.SWIM didn't listen and thought he could prove everyone wrong. Of course it did after SWIM lost his job a year later due to overwhelming depression (which existed before SWIM took H) SWIM never thought he would commit crime for H. SWIM has always been an honest person and if you asked anyone who knows SWIM they will tell you I would do anything for anyone.

Back to the point addicts would not need to commit crime if heroin was legalised as it would be ten times more affordable therefore no need for SWIYs concentration camps. Of course this is far too sensible an idea. Also the dealers would have no customers left so it would reduce crime so much it is unbelievable.

Addicts do have families too you know they are HUMAN!!!!

[FredChobblers]

As I made clear I was not making a Hitler type suggestion. I am trying to be realistic. I think SWIYs have to remember that while they may consider taking heroin a personal right, legalising it is a societal decision that will essentially be made by politicians. The reality of the situation is that the there is no political party that is going to embrace a policy of legalising heroin in the near future as there is a rather large chunk of the electorate that will not go for it.

With that in mind, SWIYs may consider whether their best bet is to go for a compromise along the lines I have suggested, be it a half way house to eventualy legalising, or a long term compromise. But this does not have to be a bad place. Like I said, this is not a suggestion of making a ghetto. Why cant they make a proper town? I mean why can't the SWIYs build their own town? It could be great. And shouldn't SWIYs earn the right in that way rather than having it handed to them on a plate?

Again I am not trying to provoke a war here, I am just curious to see if SWIYs would go for it if they had the opportunity.

[Junkhead23]

How is handed on a plate like? Many addicts hold down jobs and are fully functioning people just like those who choose to use alcohol.

Maybe a town should be made for all the drunks that kick innocent peoples heads in for no reason. At least junkies aren't violent thugs who will smash your teeth in for merely looking their way

Anyway it ain't gonna happen is it? So there isn't much point in discussing it

[jon-q]

SmackHeads-Ville~Sounds like a place in "Westworld"(For any swimmers who have not seen this 1973 film}It's about a amusement park set in the future were all your desires can come true via three worlds }Western,medievil and roman) of course it all goes tits up and everybody dies!!
Fred you do raise one good point~Quote} "The reality of the situation is that the there is no political party that is going to embrace a policy of legalising heroin in the near future as there is a rather large chunk of the electorate that will not go for it."

Swim agrees with this statement and this is the only reason that will stop any drugs ever being made "Legaly-available" to those that choose to use them.That large chunk of ill-informed voters that you describe are people just like yourself fred,you may well be suprised if you take the time to really look into this situation as to just how many drug addicts/users are actually out there.
This is also unfortunately the very same reason that your "Heroin Village" idea(as good as it is)will not see the light of day.

Another Fred~Quote}"And shouldn't SWIYs earn the right in that way rather than having it handed to them on a plate?"

Where do you get this idea from~That all Heroin addicts do not earn their own money to pay for their habits?Sure many do steal e.t.c but don't asume this is the case for all users!swiself is 38yrs young and he has worked for 21 of these years,he thinks he's paid is dues can you say the same?
The situation in the Uk at present is this}Drug dealers pretty much have a free open market,yes the odd small time dealer will get busted from time to time but as there is such a great demand for the product~others quickly fill the gaps and this will continue until the demand is no longer needed.How do we achieve this??~Well swims idea would be to go down to a local-specialist Doctors surgery were upon satisfying the said DR a prescription for XYZ could be dispensed and paid for,the chemical companies and goverments can skim a nice little bit of cream off the top,the on-going battle against drug production/trafficking/distribution can end and if 1% of the money saved/made from this system were to be plouged back into helping addicts then maybe,just maybe in 5-10yrs time the black market in illegal drug sales would all but end??
And with regards to Smackheads-ville it already exists????It's called the United Kingdom..!
Regards jon-q