beutelwolf wrote:
>
> Frankly, I do not give a hoot about junkies either, but I see
> this matter more strategically: (i) if the junkies get their
> "free hit" from the NHS then they do not need to turn to crime
> to feed their habit; (ii) moreover, that would kill the black
> market, by destroying its prices; this should (iii) mean that
> fewer people would get hooked in the first place, because it's
> the junkies that get the free hits, not the curious idiots -
> and the curious idiots would not have a place to buy the stuff
> from. Altogether, the expected lowering in crime would easily
> pay for the extra costs to the NHS, I am sure.
(i) The junkies will get thier free hit from the NHS and seek out more from their dealer, to a junkie more is always better.
(ii) There will ALWAYS be a black market and to think that rewarding a smackhead for being a smackhead is the answer then you are naive. The dealer will either just make it cheaper by filling it with other chemicals and buffers or as someone already pointed out come up with something more addictive and more lethal.
(iii) Already answered in the fact that the black market will always have a way round it, usually meaning more deadly and cheaper drugs on the streets which will equal MORE NHS costs.
Should heroin be given on the NHS?
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
[b]Free Slut Galleries Here
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
I do apologise, i just considered it was obvious i was referring to street drugs.
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
warren zevon rip wrote:
> Drugs do hurt people. Nobody has said they don't. It's how you
> minimise the hurt and crime and try to repair it that matters.
>
> Alcohol cause millions misery. It is a drug
>
> Nicotine cause millions misery. It is a drug.
>
> If you actually mean illegal drugs, at least say so.
No disrespect but the title of this thread is obvious as to what drug(heroin) people are refering to.
Also the simple fact that Alcohol and Nicotine claim more lives every year than any other drug answers the threads main question, they claim more lives because they are legal and readily available to virtually anyone.
Too many addicts will see free H from the NHS as an easy fix on top of what they already take. I also wonder how many more hospital, surgery and chemist burglaries there will be if they now this stuff is being kept there?
> Drugs do hurt people. Nobody has said they don't. It's how you
> minimise the hurt and crime and try to repair it that matters.
>
> Alcohol cause millions misery. It is a drug
>
> Nicotine cause millions misery. It is a drug.
>
> If you actually mean illegal drugs, at least say so.
No disrespect but the title of this thread is obvious as to what drug(heroin) people are refering to.
Also the simple fact that Alcohol and Nicotine claim more lives every year than any other drug answers the threads main question, they claim more lives because they are legal and readily available to virtually anyone.
Too many addicts will see free H from the NHS as an easy fix on top of what they already take. I also wonder how many more hospital, surgery and chemist burglaries there will be if they now this stuff is being kept there?
[b]Free Slut Galleries Here
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
80-90% of people are law abiding citizens, so I wonder how many people want to try heroin/cocaine/ecstasy etc, but never do, due to not wanting to break the law?
Legalisation will give these people an excuse to try it. Imagine entering a chemist whist drunk to get some Nurofen for your headache, only to come across the shelf with heroin? Under the influence of alcohol it may seem like a good idea to purchase this deadly drug.
Forget it, it's a dangerous idea in my opinion.
Legalisation will give these people an excuse to try it. Imagine entering a chemist whist drunk to get some Nurofen for your headache, only to come across the shelf with heroin? Under the influence of alcohol it may seem like a good idea to purchase this deadly drug.
Forget it, it's a dangerous idea in my opinion.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
Mike-L wrote:
> (i) The junkies will get thier free hit from the NHS and seek
> out more from their dealer, to a junkie more is always better.
That is naive: the NHS could provide them with sufficient stuff to feed the habit. As far as I am concerned, give them enough to overdose and die on the spot, if they choose to.
> (ii) There will ALWAYS be a black market and to think that
> rewarding a smackhead for being a smackhead is the answer then
> you are naive.
I would not call injecting someone with heroin a reward, even if they think it is.
The idea is to take their need away to get a fix, plain and simple.
> The dealer will either just make it cheaper by
> filling it with other chemicals and buffers or as someone
> already pointed out come up with something more addictive and
> more lethal.
But if you get your free hit from the NHS there is no point any more to go to a dealer, especially not if you can expect to be poisoned by poor quality.
Will the dealers come up with other stuff? Of course, they will. But taking heroin off the black market by simply making it commercially no longer viable would be a valuable step.
> (iii) Already answered in the fact that the black market will
> always have a way round it, usually meaning more deadly and
> cheaper drugs on the streets which will equal MORE NHS costs.
There will always be a black market for drugs. That I do not dispute. If the drugs on the street are cheaper, that is something I welcome, simply because it reduces the junkies' needs to commit crimes to feed their habit, and it also reduces the commercial value of the black market and thus the associated crime to dominate that black market. If the drugs on the street are deadlier, I welcome that as well, because as far as I am concerned a dead junkie is a good junkie.
The cost for the NHS is relatively small. Heroin is not an expensive drug (on the white market), and I expect that the overall costs for the NHS would be dominated by the cost of administering the drug, i.e. staffing, providing clean needles etc.
> (i) The junkies will get thier free hit from the NHS and seek
> out more from their dealer, to a junkie more is always better.
That is naive: the NHS could provide them with sufficient stuff to feed the habit. As far as I am concerned, give them enough to overdose and die on the spot, if they choose to.
> (ii) There will ALWAYS be a black market and to think that
> rewarding a smackhead for being a smackhead is the answer then
> you are naive.
I would not call injecting someone with heroin a reward, even if they think it is.
The idea is to take their need away to get a fix, plain and simple.
> The dealer will either just make it cheaper by
> filling it with other chemicals and buffers or as someone
> already pointed out come up with something more addictive and
> more lethal.
But if you get your free hit from the NHS there is no point any more to go to a dealer, especially not if you can expect to be poisoned by poor quality.
Will the dealers come up with other stuff? Of course, they will. But taking heroin off the black market by simply making it commercially no longer viable would be a valuable step.
> (iii) Already answered in the fact that the black market will
> always have a way round it, usually meaning more deadly and
> cheaper drugs on the streets which will equal MORE NHS costs.
There will always be a black market for drugs. That I do not dispute. If the drugs on the street are cheaper, that is something I welcome, simply because it reduces the junkies' needs to commit crimes to feed their habit, and it also reduces the commercial value of the black market and thus the associated crime to dominate that black market. If the drugs on the street are deadlier, I welcome that as well, because as far as I am concerned a dead junkie is a good junkie.
The cost for the NHS is relatively small. Heroin is not an expensive drug (on the white market), and I expect that the overall costs for the NHS would be dominated by the cost of administering the drug, i.e. staffing, providing clean needles etc.
-
the man, the legend
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
I don't by any stretch of the imagination claim to be an expert on this subject. Yes, I dabble in some illegal substancies (don't we all) but I like many others have an imaginary line I don't cross. ie. crack, smack, crystal meth etc...
But, from what I gather methadone is a far more addictive, expensive and destructive opium derivative than heroin so where is the logic in getting people off heroin and on to methadone. They're just changing the addiction.
Why not give the people who want to get off it reduced doses of heroin instead along with counselling and they might get better results.
But, from what I gather methadone is a far more addictive, expensive and destructive opium derivative than heroin so where is the logic in getting people off heroin and on to methadone. They're just changing the addiction.
Why not give the people who want to get off it reduced doses of heroin instead along with counselling and they might get better results.
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
the man, the legend wrote:
>
> Why not give the people who want to get off it reduced doses of
> heroin instead along with counselling and they might get better
> results.
Because the small amount won't be enough to a heavy addict, especially if the dependancy is high.
>
> Why not give the people who want to get off it reduced doses of
> heroin instead along with counselling and they might get better
> results.
Because the small amount won't be enough to a heavy addict, especially if the dependancy is high.
[b]Free Slut Galleries Here
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
and the nature of it is that you start small and then it grows bigger as youre need to attain the same level of hit as when they first started, thats why they start with smoking and then onto injection as it gives a bigger hit and is cheaper to.
Re: Should heroin be given on the NHS?
I've replied in bold mate.
beutelwolf wrote:
> Mike-L wrote:
>
> > (i) The junkies will get thier free hit from the NHS and seek
> > out more from their dealer, to a junkie more is always
> better.
>
> That is naive: the NHS could provide them with sufficient stuff
> to feed the habit. As far as I am concerned, give them enough
> to overdose and die on the spot, if they choose to.
How is the NHS supposed to measure what is sufficient? I imagine if they go ahead with something like this there would only be a maximum dose they were allowed to perscribe as all other drugs and different users have different dependancies some higher than others.
> > (ii) There will ALWAYS be a black market and to think that
> > rewarding a smackhead for being a smackhead is the answer
> then
> > you are naive.
>
> I would not call injecting someone with heroin a reward, even
> if they think it is.
> The idea is to take their need away to get a fix, plain and
> simple.
Its not the answer, the human body WILL adapt to whatever dose the NHS provides them therefore their dependancy will go up. So the need will go up plain and simple
> > The dealer will either just make it cheaper by
> > filling it with other chemicals and buffers or as someone
> > already pointed out come up with something more addictive and
> > more lethal.
>
> But if you get your free hit from the NHS there is no point any
> more to go to a dealer, especially not if you can expect to be
> poisoned by poor quality.
As already stated once they get used the maximum dose the NHS provides they WILL seek out more. At the end of the day the aim should be to get them off not make them more dependant
> Will the dealers come up with other stuff? Of course, they
> will. But taking heroin off the black market by simply making
> it commercially no longer viable would be a valuable step.
You won't get it off the black market, if people will need it they will still make it, and not everyone will go to the NHS.
> > (iii) Already answered in the fact that the black market will
> > always have a way round it, usually meaning more deadly and
> > cheaper drugs on the streets which will equal MORE NHS costs.
>
> There will always be a black market for drugs. That I do not
> dispute. If the drugs on the street are cheaper, that is
> something I welcome, simply because it reduces the junkies'
> needs to commit crimes to feed their habit, and it also reduces
> the commercial value of the black market and thus the
> associated crime to dominate that black market. If the drugs on
> the street are deadlier, I welcome that as well, because as far
> as I am concerned a dead junkie is a good junkie.
True but a newer more lethal substance will, will cause more hospital beds to be taken, and money spent, unfortunately they won't all die and life support costs a fortune.
> The cost for the NHS is relatively small. Heroin is not an
> expensive drug (on the white market), and I expect that the
> overall costs for the NHS would be dominated by the cost of
> administering the drug, i.e. staffing, providing clean needles
> etc.
Again if more of these idiots are taking up hospital beds, and requiring the treatment to bring them back from an overdose that will cost a fortune and take the hospital beds away from people like you and me or our familes when we need it. Also as someone already stated they will automatically get registered for sick benefits(when genuine sick people can't get it), so that will also cost the taxpayers a bomb
beutelwolf wrote:
> Mike-L wrote:
>
> > (i) The junkies will get thier free hit from the NHS and seek
> > out more from their dealer, to a junkie more is always
> better.
>
> That is naive: the NHS could provide them with sufficient stuff
> to feed the habit. As far as I am concerned, give them enough
> to overdose and die on the spot, if they choose to.
How is the NHS supposed to measure what is sufficient? I imagine if they go ahead with something like this there would only be a maximum dose they were allowed to perscribe as all other drugs and different users have different dependancies some higher than others.
> > (ii) There will ALWAYS be a black market and to think that
> > rewarding a smackhead for being a smackhead is the answer
> then
> > you are naive.
>
> I would not call injecting someone with heroin a reward, even
> if they think it is.
> The idea is to take their need away to get a fix, plain and
> simple.
Its not the answer, the human body WILL adapt to whatever dose the NHS provides them therefore their dependancy will go up. So the need will go up plain and simple
> > The dealer will either just make it cheaper by
> > filling it with other chemicals and buffers or as someone
> > already pointed out come up with something more addictive and
> > more lethal.
>
> But if you get your free hit from the NHS there is no point any
> more to go to a dealer, especially not if you can expect to be
> poisoned by poor quality.
As already stated once they get used the maximum dose the NHS provides they WILL seek out more. At the end of the day the aim should be to get them off not make them more dependant
> Will the dealers come up with other stuff? Of course, they
> will. But taking heroin off the black market by simply making
> it commercially no longer viable would be a valuable step.
You won't get it off the black market, if people will need it they will still make it, and not everyone will go to the NHS.
> > (iii) Already answered in the fact that the black market will
> > always have a way round it, usually meaning more deadly and
> > cheaper drugs on the streets which will equal MORE NHS costs.
>
> There will always be a black market for drugs. That I do not
> dispute. If the drugs on the street are cheaper, that is
> something I welcome, simply because it reduces the junkies'
> needs to commit crimes to feed their habit, and it also reduces
> the commercial value of the black market and thus the
> associated crime to dominate that black market. If the drugs on
> the street are deadlier, I welcome that as well, because as far
> as I am concerned a dead junkie is a good junkie.
True but a newer more lethal substance will, will cause more hospital beds to be taken, and money spent, unfortunately they won't all die and life support costs a fortune.
> The cost for the NHS is relatively small. Heroin is not an
> expensive drug (on the white market), and I expect that the
> overall costs for the NHS would be dominated by the cost of
> administering the drug, i.e. staffing, providing clean needles
> etc.
Again if more of these idiots are taking up hospital beds, and requiring the treatment to bring them back from an overdose that will cost a fortune and take the hospital beds away from people like you and me or our familes when we need it. Also as someone already stated they will automatically get registered for sick benefits(when genuine sick people can't get it), so that will also cost the taxpayers a bomb
[b]Free Slut Galleries Here
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]
<http://www.slutsoncloud9.co.uk>[/b]