The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:39 am

Every drug user in the UK cost taxpayers £44 thousand pounds a year it says in todays news paper . Now thats a LOT of money when you add it all up

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:49 am

sounds like enough money for a family to live on.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:12 am

Diuretic;467686 wrote: Got a link pants? The breakdown would be good to read if possible.

Sorry Di im not very good with links . The newspaper ( the Sun) suggests that 90% of the cash relates to crime and the total includes the social and economic impact . Britain has an estimated 375,000 hardcore drug users . ..

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:22 am

SnoozeControl;467695 wrote: I found it for you, Pants.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20 ... 3,,00.html

You little sweety you :-4;)

I really need that kid of mine to give me some PC lessons im a complete computer dope .

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:48 am

Seems the process is churning in the right direction. They say they can build 200 hospitals for the same amount as the per year expense.

A good start is to decriminalize drugs and build some of those hospitals.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:08 am

Cods wollop;Hard drugs should be supplied free on the NHS to help sever the link between addiction and crime. "I'm not saying that it is a good thing to take hard drugs," she told ITV1's Sunday Supplement. "But what I am saying is that present policies are not working and the drug problem is growing and is a major part of Britain's crime problem." former Labour cabinet minister Clare Short.

Anyone agree with the above statement?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:11 am

Diuretic;467712 wrote: Hear, hear!

I couldn't believe this little gem:

Hello? Is dope that expensive in the UK????

Wouldn't know! I have no idea on the amounts he bought in each transaction but my ex spent £30 week on dope, that was a big slice of the housekeeping money.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:13 am

Betty Boop;467715 wrote:

Anyone agree with the above statement?

Drugs should be supplyed on the NHS - should they f*c* . Nasty little junkies should be imprisoned and forced to go cold turkey rollocks to manby pambying them

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:14 am

Diuretic;467712 wrote: Hello? Is dope that expensive in the UK????http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4206388.stm

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:15 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467717 wrote: Drugs should be supplyed on the NHS - should they f*c* . Nasty little junkies should be imprisoned and forced to go cold turkey rollocks to manby pambying them

Ok, so what do we do with the children of these 'junkies' ??

I do tend to agree with you there Pants!

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:24 am

Betty Boop;467721 wrote: Ok, so what do we do with the children of these 'junkies' ??

I do tend to agree with you there Pants!

Junkies shouldn't be allowed to have have kids but thats just my veiw . The only solution i can see is taking the children away from the parent if the child can't be placed with another family member - anyone remember Sheryl b - now that was a shining example of junkie britain;)

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:29 am

Diuretic;467720 wrote: Drug addiction is a health problem. The crime it generates is a by-product of prohibition.

Unfortunately total legalisation isn't possible at the moment so a judicious mix of health policy and law enforcement is necessary but the aim should be to increase the amount of healthy policy and decrease the amount of law enforcement activity over some years.

I know that's a simplistic statement regarding a very complex issue but it's a start.

I don't find it simplistic in a negative way. The simplicity is that they have proof that prohibition policies result in worse behaviour. In this case being simplistic is required in seeing the benefit of major policy shift. Unfortunately all it takes is one bloke saying "we need to send the right message" to start a whirlwind of disdain. In the storm, everyone denies the simple facts in hopes of cashing in on the morality point scoring.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:35 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467726 wrote: Junkies shouldn't be allowed to have have kids but thats just my veiw . The only solution i can see is taking the children away from the parent if the child can't be placed with another family member - anyone remember Sheryl b - now that was a shining example of junkie britain;)

But the reality is that most of these junkies do have children, and the other reality is the government is giving these parents their daily doses of drugs so that they don't have to take the children away.

Where do we break the cycle? Feed them their habit, keep the children with them and keep our fingers crossed the children come out the other end 'ok' ?:-5

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:52 am

Betty Boop;467729 wrote: But the reality is that most of these junkies do have children, and the other reality is the government is giving these parents their daily doses of drugs so that they don't have to take the children away.

Where do we break the cycle? Feed them their habit, keep the children with them and keep our fingers crossed the children come out the other end 'ok' ?:-5

I honesty don't know the answer but i have seen it first hand . My friends sons(all three of them) were all junkies, only one has kids and the kids know that daddy is a junkie. All they did was hide anything of value so he couldn't sell it - he even stole from his own mother . I have a hard time with just giving them the drug on the NHS . Near to where i live theres a small park/cemetery and 99% of the drunks/dossers are given the methadone (sp) in the chemist

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:55 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467726 wrote: Junkies shouldn't be allowed to have have kids but thats just my veiw.Or any criminals at all, presumably. Cutting out their reproductive organs at the prison hospital the day they arrive would do the trick. Or as part of the sentencing process in front of the judge and jury before these subhuman derelicts of society get sent down, to give the whole legal process a comedy element it so sorely lacks.

You know, if all these drugs were decriminalized and sold at newsagent shops like cigarettes, the number of criminals in the UK would drop overnight, has that not occurred to anyone yet? It might even generate enough additional duty for the government to drop the rate of income tax. It might suddenly cut the drug-barons' profit margins to zero.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:59 am

spot;467734 wrote: Or any criminals at all, presumably. Cutting out their reproductive organs at the prison hospital the day they arrive would do the trick. Or as part of the sentencing process in front of the judge and jury before these subhuman derelicts of society get sent down, to give the whole legal process a comedy element it so sorely lacks.

You know, if all these drugs were decriminalized and sold at newsagent shops like cigarettes, the number of criminals in the UK would drop overnight, has that not occurred to anyone yet? It might even generate enough additional duty for the government to drop the rate of income tax. It might suddenly cut the drug-barons' profit margins to zero.

Spot im sure junkies make wonderful parents.:yh_wink .. why don't you open your doors to them ,offer them a home, i can see you truly feel for them;) :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:03 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467735 wrote: Spot im sure junkies make wonderful parents.I thought you wanted them all sterilized on conviction?

The thread title is "The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie". Removing the cost to the country seems a sensible step to take.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:05 am

spot;467736 wrote: I thought you wanted them all sterilized on conviction?

The thread title is "The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie". Removing the cost to the country seems a sensible step to take.

Maybe we should all adopt one..... how about that Snot

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:06 am

lady cop;467677 wrote: sounds like enough money for a family to live on.

Pff..

I can almost guarantee that is about the amount an average family makes in a year throughout the U.S...

Actually it may be less.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:08 am

Diuretic;467732 wrote: I know this is a bit out of left field but if sufficient "critical mass" (I know it's a scientific term and I'm misusing it but I can't think of a decent metaphor) is reached then an issue - a socio-political issue - will take off. In Australia at the moment climate change/global warming is - forgive the pun - heating up as an issue. Even our ultra-conservative PM is scrambling to avoid being run over by it. And so it will be with drugs. I just hope that pretty soon enough of us regard it as a health issue and not a crime issue (as I stated, drug-related crime is a by-product of wrong-headed policy) so that we can convince our political representatives to ditch the failed policy that created the "drug problem" in the first place.

I don't think it is that much of a leap. What is also required, in addition to it becoming a priority issue, is removal of the morality based misinformation that seeks to satisfy a social desire for feeling morally superior. It is well supported that people will find enemies to pit themselves against in order to win this morality game and this is the weakness that prevents resolution. People need someone to hate. It makes them feel better.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:09 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467692 wrote: ...Britain has an estimated 375,000 hardcore drug users . ..

Wow,...I would almost consider that on the brink of extinction.

There are probably more than 375,000 hard core drug users in New York City alone.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:11 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467738 wrote: Maybe we should all adopt one how about that Snot ;)I'm always puzzled when people think mis-spelling my username adds to the strength of their argument. Perhaps you could explain to me how that works.

Why are drug users criminals in the first place? Why do drug suppliers exist at all? Because the UK government decided in its wisdom to make supply and use a criminal offence, of course. People used opium and cocaine in this country in the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth, without either party breaking the law. The law is broken because it exists. Remove the criminalizing law and the people concerned go back to being law-abiding citizens by definition, the jail population drops, the quality of the product stops being adulterated, there's any number of benefits.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:13 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467738 wrote: Maybe we should all adopt one how about that Snot

Ops sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:18 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467747 wrote: Ops sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Thank you. You might now like to address the questions, having cleared up the matter of my username. You do want every one of these people sterilized, after all, and there's a lot of them to operate on. Finding another approach could be considered a humane act.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:21 am

spot;467748 wrote: Thank you. You might now like to address the questions, having cleared up the matter of my username. You do want every one of these people sterilized, after all, and there's a lot of them to operate on. Finding another approach could be considered a humane act.

Give me the pros and cons and i'll think about it

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:32 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;467750 wrote: Give me the pros and cons and i'll think about it

That was a statement, not a question. The questions are about decriminalizing supply and use, definitively reducing the number of state-defined criminals in the country (since it's invariably the state that defines which acts are illegal and which aren't), and eliminating the "uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie" of the thread header.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:50 am

That's a good article, Diuretic. I hope people read it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:28 am

koan;467707 wrote: Seems the process is churning in the right direction. They say they can build 200 hospitals for the same amount as the per year expense.

A good start is to decriminalize drugs and build some of those hospitals.

Decriminalize drugs ? Of course.

Open the borders for trafficking ? Naturally.

Subsidize addiction through complacency ? Why not ?

Set up shop outside the schoolyards ? Get them while theyre young !

Tax drugs ? That would be good for society.

Think it through koan. :rolleyes:

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:50 am

Nomad;467788 wrote: Decriminalize drugs ? Of course.

Open the borders for trafficking ? Naturally.

Subsidize addiction through complacency ? Why not ?

Set up shop outside the schoolyards ? Get them while theyre young !

Tax drugs ? That would be good for society.

Think it through koan. :rolleyes:

It has been thought through, quite thoroughly. Wikipedia has a few good basic articles on the subject but the arguments agains prohibition are numerous and valid.

Here's a starting point. Look to the section titled "Controversy"

There are times I can take credit for original thought but this is not one of them.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:48 pm

Well obviously neither one of you know what it feels like to be addicted. If you did you'd both understand how ludicrous this all sounds.

Carry on. :rolleyes: :-5

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:44 am

Nomad;468413 wrote: Well obviously neither one of you know what it feels like to be addicted. If you did you'd both understand how ludicrous this all sounds.

Carry on. :rolleyes: :-5

While researching a story, I came to know two drug dealers and a runner.

One of the dealers decided to tell me his complete story. He changed his mind part way through but over a few months I gathered a large number of fascinating episodes.

One time in particular, the dealer was driving around in his Lincoln plastered and rowdy with three buddies in the passenger seats. They rounded a corner into a road check and were pulled over. The officer that took his ID called it in and returned. The license was returned and the dealer told to drive away. The police had him under investigation. They were not permitted to arrest him on minor charges such as drunk driving because it would get in the way of the larger operation. The dealer, quite happy with his immediate circumstances, drove around the block four times with sheer delight and the police waved him through each time. The police never did manage to arrest him.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:31 am

koan;468536 wrote: While researching a story, I came to know two drug dealers and a runner.

One of the dealers decided to tell me his complete story. He changed his mind part way through but over a few months I gathered a large number of fascinating episodes.

One time in particular, the dealer was driving around in his Lincoln plastered and rowdy with three buddies in the passenger seats. They rounded a corner into a road check and were pulled over. The officer that took his ID called it in and returned. The license was returned and the dealer told to drive away. The police had him under investigation. They were not permitted to arrest him on minor charges such as drunk driving because it would get in the way of the larger operation. The dealer, quite happy with his immediate circumstances, drove around the block four times with sheer delight and the police waved him through each time. The police never did manage to arrest him.

This is an obscure example of something Im sure. The fact is that many many alcoholics and drug addicts are able to function in society without resorting to criminal behavior (sans impaired driving) not to minimize that but Im referring to the stereotypical junkie car jacking, robbing etc. I always held a job and in some ways I excelled beyond my peers because I was fearful that my condition was like putting my neck on the chopping block every morning I arrived for work. So I worked harder than some others. I have been arrested for drug possession and at some point in time I gave up the drugs for bourbon and beer. Lots of it. Knowing myself and my addictive personality I have no doubt in my mind that if drugs were legal, I wouldnt be here right now adoring you. Id be long gone. Legalizing drugs is a bad idea on so many levels.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:39 pm

(((Nomad))) :-4

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:41 pm

Nomad;468641 wrote: This is an obscure example of something Im sure. The fact is that many many alcoholics and drug addicts are able to function in society without resorting to criminal behavior (sans impaired driving) not to minimize that but Im referring to the stereotypical junkie car jacking, robbing etc. I always held a job and in some ways I excelled beyond my peers because I was fearful that my condition was like putting my neck on the chopping block every morning I arrived for work. So I worked harder than some others. I have been arrested for drug possession and at some point in time I gave up the drugs for bourbon and beer. Lots of it. Knowing myself and my addictive personality I have no doubt in my mind that if drugs were legal, I wouldnt be here right now adoring you. Id be long gone. Legalizing drugs is a bad idea on so many levels.
I don't think it can be assumed that you were saved by the legal system. I think an addict, and I am an addictive personality as well, is only saved by their own resolution. Whether the breaking point that allowed you to reverse direction in your life came from one source or another, you had a breaking point that would have been reached. Perhaps that prescribes to fate more than some can accept but I do believe that destructive behaviours result in being faced by worse and worse outcomes that attempt to force a person to deal with the problem. Dealing with it sooner reduces the harshness of the predicaments.

Addiction is a disorder. It is better to focus on healing people than just stand by and wait for them to break the law. All the money that goes into criminalizing drugs could be better spent on helping people cure their illness. And making sure that drugs are not laced/cut in dangerous ways. An assistant producer who had developed a cocaine problem on one show I was working on died one night because he bought his dope from the wrong guy. He didn't do that much of it. He was well within being able to cure his addiction but that one bad batch ended his life.

Legalizing drugs is not the same as endorsing drug use. The point of legalising them isn't really to make them more easily available it is make it so that they can be regulated. Prohibition encourages criminal organisations such as the mafia - as shown so clearly when alcohol was prohibited. The reasons that they lifted prohibition are the same reasons they should decriminalize the drug trade.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:14 pm

The end result is legalizing drugs will make them readily available. No way around that. And in many regards that would endorse the use which very often leads to abuse.

I couldnt agree more that I was forced to confront myself and I had a choice to make. That decision lasted 5 yrs though. It was a culmination of misery heaped upon despair and a desire hidden somewhere to live. Not all make it though. My mom didnt. In the end she was abstinent but only after being commited to a state hospital. She'd lost her mind and quite honestly I doubt her will to live was intact. Same with Uncle Ronnie. After he drowned I found about 4-500 empty 1/2 gl bottles of gin in his house. He pissed his masters in education away because he couldnt beat it.

Nothing good comes from narcotics or alcohol when its abused. Like they say "reality is for those that cant deal with drugs"

Those clinics koan ? Their doors were always open. Most users dont just walk in.