ForumGarden

Heroin and all similar drugs, I think, should be given away free at health centres

to addicted addics only.

If that were to happen there would be no need to buy on the black market,no need to burgle and rob people...........the sellers could not thrive and make money anymore...........just think how much governments would save on security,police time if we got rid of this street crime.....I reckon in 20 years the whole thing would be wiped out because for mr. big there would be no market and the growers would just supply the governments..am I right or not ?

I don't think you are, no. It's been endlessly debated, and it's not a good system. It's too open for abuse, and the black market for drugs will still exist, because there will always be people who are suspicious of the government's motives in giving the drugs away, especially if there were restrictions such as age or quantity. Furthermore, there are numerous pitfalls with the plan.

How would such programs be administered? How would they be financed? What would the purpose of such a program be - take, for example, someone who's addicted. Would that person be given enough to satisfy the cravings, or just enough to get him by? Would he ("he" being generic) be slowly weaned off the drug, or would his dosage be systematically increased as his addiction grew? Where would the drugs come from - existing criminal sources, or an internal source? How would we fund the infrastructure needed for this? What about people who are "just experimenting"? Do we give them the drugs and addict them too? Which drugs, and how is it decided? Age limits? Profession limits - after all, you wouldn't want an airline pilot or a doctor or a cop to be high during the performance of his duties.

Polling of the American population has indicated that there would not be support for such an action - and popular support would be required. Many of the laws that would have to be changed would need to be on various ballots, and these initiatives wouldn't pass. About three-quarters of the people surveyed in one Gallup poll opposed legalization of drugs which are currently illegal.

Furthermore, there are no scientific data to support the theory that legalizing drugs would reduce their usage.

Nope, I don't think it's a good plan.

Since some drugs are legal I wonder what the guidelines are for determining which should be which. A law can't (one should hope) be arbitrary. Does anyone know where to find the guidelines for labeling something an illegal drug?

www.fda.gov

It's a huge site with tons of information, but the guidelines for whether a drug is legalized or not are there.

koan wrote: Since some drugs are legal I wonder what the guidelines are for determining which should be which. A law can't (one should hope) be arbitrary. Does anyone know where to find the guidelines for labeling something an illegal drug?


Well it cannot be related to how much damage it does to the adicts and those around them.

My guess is it a function of the cut the government gets - or has everyone forgotten the Opium Wars already.

Erinna1112 wrote:

Furthermore, there are no scientific data to support the theory that legalizing drugs would reduce their usage.


I know of no studies that have been carried out as tyere are no countries that have de-criminalised hard drugs (as opposed to hash / cannibis which is a different matter entirely).

You cannot write off the idea due to lack of favourable data if there's no data for or against.

If it's no longer a criminal offence then the massive profits dissappear and, with that, the motivation to push it. If people are no longer being enticed, tricked, pressured into taking it then the rate of uptake should fall rapidly.

It's an attractive theory, unproven one way or the other.

Drug addicts in the UK are already given methadone (heroin substitute) free from the government.

It does'nt stop users buying fom the dealers.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

I know of no studies that have been carried out as tyere are no countries that have de-criminalised hard drugs (as opposed to hash / cannibis which is a different matter entirely).

You cannot write off the idea due to lack of favourable data if there's no data for or against.
I didn't.

There are indeed studies that have been performed on this issue. The laws don't have to actually be passed in order for their effects to be studied.

Just a sample:

A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 1993.

"Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs and A Proposed Solution," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 26, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 1988.

"Arguments Against the Legalization of Drugs," Campuses Without Drugs International, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Brown, Dr. Lee, Dir. of Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Eight Myths About Drugs," Presented at the Conference on Crime, Drugs, Health and Prohibition, Harvard Law School May 21, 1994.

Caltrider, William R., Jr., "The Snare and Delusion of Legalization," Presented to the Demand Reduction Symposium, Department of Justice, DEA, Arlington, VA. January 27, 1994.

"Drug Legalization: Myths & Misconceptions," DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Seattle, WA.

Dupont, Robert L. MD and Ronald L. Goldfarb, Esq., "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs: The Delusion of Just Saying Yes," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA.

"Forces at Work to Legalize Drugs in Europe," Hassela Nordic Network Newspaper, Hassela, Sweden , Volume 1, Issue 1 October 1993.

Gaetano, Ron, R.Ph, "Making it Legal Won't Make it Less Lethal," Health for ALL, Americans Against Legalization, Genesis Center, Union, N.J. 1990.

"Issues and Comments to Respond to Legalization of Illegal Drugs," DEA May, 1988.

"Legalize Drugs? No!," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, Number 27, Atlanta, GA. December 1988.

"Legalizing Drugs is Not the Answer," Citizens for A Drug-Free Oregon, Portland, Oregon. 1988.

"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box," White Paper #1, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, NY, September 1995.

Mann, Peggy, "Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St. Danvers, MA. 01923. September 1988.

"More Arguments Against Legalization," Drug Abuse Update, National Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 33, Atlanta, GA. June 1990.

Nahas, Gabriel G. MD, PhD, "The Decline of Drugged Nations," Wall St. Journal, July 11, 1988.

Peterson, Robert, Esq., "Legalization: The Myth Exposed," Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA., 1991.

Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs. Published originally by the Regional Drug Initiative, Portland, OR, September 1990. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria , VA; revised September 1993.

Position Statement Against the Legalization of Drugs, PRIDE, Atlanta, GA, 1990.

"Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs: A Compilation of Articles," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA. 01923.

Recommendations Regarding Legalization of Drugs, White House Conference for A Drug-Free America Final Report, June 1988.

Resolution Against the Legalization of Drugs, The National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, 1159-B Southtown Square, St. Louis, MO. 63123.

Roques, Wayne, "Ten Compelling Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs,” DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Miami Division, 1993.

Schwartz, Richard, MD, "Prohibition, 1920 to 1933: An Overview of Its Effects on Public Health and the Economy," Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4 April 1992.

"Seven Arguments Against Drug Legalization," EURAD News, Lomma Sweden, Spring 1993.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, U.S. Department of Justice, DEA, 1994.

"Tacking Drugs Together:" A consultation document on a strategy for England 1995-98. Presented to Parliament, October 1994. Introduction by Prime Minister John Major.

"The Myths of Drug Legalization," California Narcotic Officer's Association, Santa Clarita, CA.

Walton, Judge Reggie B., Associate Director Bureau of State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Speech to the American Bar Association, August 7, 1989.

Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs," Commentary, Volume 89, No. 2, February 1990.

Erinna1112 wrote: I didn't.

There are indeed studies that have been performed on this issue. The laws don't have to actually be passed in order for their effects to be studied.

Just a sample:

A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 1993.




Forgive me if I don't concentrate on the reading list at the moment - we've just scored.

I did look at three of the offerings, all identical texts, full of assertions and light on facts and backup.

I'll respond in more detail when I've had a chance to digest.

Yep...this issue is definitely a twin-edged sword. On the one hand it's obvious from history that prohibition of things like this never works. If people want it, they'll get it legally or illegally.

On the other hand, do we really need more intoxicated drivers on the road? More heart attacks and health issues in our hospitals? Lost production? Absenteeism? Broken families? Nope. We don't.

I'll lean towards the "keeping it illegal" side of this argument knowing full well that it is not working, just because I thik the alternative would be (slightly) worse.

What's needed is a designer drug, given free by the government, that has no ill side effects, no after effects, and relieves the stress of 21st century life perfectly.

yeah...I'm a dreamer!:o

Pinky wrote: At the risk of getting kicked in the head by twenty different people - what d'ya think Prozac is for?:D


ROFL!!!! You got me that time!! ARK-ARK-ARK!!!!!:wah:

abbey wrote: Drug addicts in the UK are already given methadone (heroin substitute) free from the government.

It does'nt stop users buying fom the dealers.


Cos its not methadone they want,thats why.

Erinna1112 wrote: I didn't.

There are indeed studies that have been performed on this issue. The laws don't have to actually be passed in order for their effects to be studied.

Just a sample:

A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 1993.

"Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs and A Proposed Solution," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 26, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 1988.

"Arguments Against the Legalization of Drugs," Campuses Without Drugs International, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Brown, Dr. Lee, Dir. of Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Eight Myths About Drugs," Presented at the Conference on Crime, Drugs, Health and Prohibition, Harvard Law School May 21, 1994.

Caltrider, William R., Jr., "The Snare and Delusion of Legalization," Presented to the Demand Reduction Symposium, Department of Justice, DEA, Arlington, VA. January 27, 1994.

"Drug Legalization: Myths & Misconceptions," DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Seattle, WA.

Dupont, Robert L. MD and Ronald L. Goldfarb, Esq., "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs: The Delusion of Just Saying Yes," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA.

"Forces at Work to Legalize Drugs in Europe," Hassela Nordic Network Newspaper, Hassela, Sweden , Volume 1, Issue 1 October 1993.

Gaetano, Ron, R.Ph, "Making it Legal Won't Make it Less Lethal," Health for ALL, Americans Against Legalization, Genesis Center, Union, N.J. 1990.

"Issues and Comments to Respond to Legalization of Illegal Drugs," DEA May, 1988.

"Legalize Drugs? No!," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, Number 27, Atlanta, GA. December 1988.

"Legalizing Drugs is Not the Answer," Citizens for A Drug-Free Oregon, Portland, Oregon. 1988.

"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box," White Paper #1, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, NY, September 1995.

Mann, Peggy, "Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St. Danvers, MA. 01923. September 1988.

"More Arguments Against Legalization," Drug Abuse Update, National Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 33, Atlanta, GA. June 1990.

Nahas, Gabriel G. MD, PhD, "The Decline of Drugged Nations," Wall St. Journal, July 11, 1988.

Peterson, Robert, Esq., "Legalization: The Myth Exposed," Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA., 1991.

Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs. Published originally by the Regional Drug Initiative, Portland, OR, September 1990. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria , VA; revised September 1993.

Position Statement Against the Legalization of Drugs, PRIDE, Atlanta, GA, 1990.

"Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs: A Compilation of Articles," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA. 01923.

Recommendations Regarding Legalization of Drugs, White House Conference for A Drug-Free America Final Report, June 1988.

Resolution Against the Legalization of Drugs, The National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, 1159-B Southtown Square, St. Louis, MO. 63123.

Roques, Wayne, "Ten Compelling Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs,” DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Miami Division, 1993.

Schwartz, Richard, MD, "Prohibition, 1920 to 1933: An Overview of Its Effects on Public Health and the Economy," Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4 April 1992.

"Seven Arguments Against Drug Legalization," EURAD News, Lomma Sweden, Spring 1993.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, U.S. Department of Justice, DEA, 1994.

"Tacking Drugs Together:" A consultation document on a strategy for England 1995-98. Presented to Parliament, October 1994. Introduction by Prime Minister John Major.

"The Myths of Drug Legalization," California Narcotic Officer's Association, Santa Clarita, CA.

Walton, Judge Reggie B., Associate Director Bureau of State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Speech to the American Bar Association, August 7, 1989.

Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs," Commentary, Volume 89, No. 2, February 1990.




I am watching the match at the moment,but I will reply..

I know a women in her late 50s who uses her disability benefit to finance her drug dealing . Her whole family have been in/out of prison all their lifes ( husband inside for life ,3 sons inside for murder ,attempted murder, theft robbery )

What makes me angry is the womans husband has been in prison for the last three years and is still in receipt of benefits - i have reported this twice, guess what, NOTHING HAS CHANGED .:-5

Bryn Mawr wrote: Forgive me if I don't concentrate on the reading list at the moment - we've just scored.
Congratulations.

I did look at three of the offerings, all identical texts, full of assertions and light on facts and backup.

I'll respond in more detail when I've had a chance to digest.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the articles and studies that I listed(and I will admit I didn't read every single word of each one), my point is that there has been research done, and I didn't simply dismiss the concept of legalizing drugs out of hand. I'm not a sociologist; I'm not really qualified to get into the deeper discussions of the societal reasons for or against it.

But...I don't offer an opinion without having done some homework. I'm not afraid to admit it when I don't know, but if I've got an opinion on something, I have a reason for it.

[/thread hijack] we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Erinna1112 wrote: www.fda.gov

It's a huge site with tons of information, but the guidelines for whether a drug is legalized or not are there.


haven't found it yet. This isn't a list of which are legal and which are not. It actually explains why?

Erinna1112 wrote: Congratulations.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the articles and studies that I listed(and I will admit I didn't read every single word of each one), my point is that there has been research done, and I didn't simply dismiss the concept of legalizing drugs out of hand. I'm not a sociologist; I'm not really qualified to get into the deeper discussions of the societal reasons for or against it.

But...I don't offer an opinion without having done some homework. I'm not afraid to admit it when I don't know, but if I've got an opinion on something, I have a reason for it.

[/thread hijack] we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.


You can't end your hijack of the thread without hijacking it in the first place :p

I think I was trying to say that you quoted references were all from the legal departments throwing their collective hands up in horror at the thought rather than socialogical studies of the likely effects of de-criminalising *hard* drugs.

I would very much like to divorce this discussion from the soft drugs as that would muddy the water - the widely held view that Canabis is less harmful that alcohol means that the effect of de-criminalising it is totally different from the effect of de-criminalising heroin or crack. Proving the the uptake of hash would increase says nothing about the uptake of hard drugs.

redman wrote: Heroin and all similar drugs, I think, should be given away free at health centres

to addicted addics only.



If that were to happen there would be no need to buy on the black market,no need to burgle and rob people...........the sellers could not thrive and make money anymore...........just think how much governments would save on security,police time if we got rid of this street crime.....I reckon in 20 years the whole thing would be wiped out because for mr. big there would be no market and the growers would just supply the governments..am I right or not ?




As a former drug addict/drunk half of me says...COOL !

The other half says....are you outta your friggin mind ?

major studies of drugs and drug policies



The LaGuardia Committee Report

This study is viewed by many experts as the best study of any drug viewed in its social, medical, and legal context. The committee covered thousands of years of the history of marijuana and also made a detailed examination of conditions In New York City. Among its conclusions: "The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word." And: "The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction, and no effort is made to create a market for those narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking." Finally: "The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."


There are more studies at that site.

As far as guidelines go, it seems to be based on the level of danger perceived at the time of the legislation. "Danger" seems a little broad.

Categories fall mainly into type 1 drugs "seen to hold no therapeutic value" and types 2-5 which have some therapeutic used in controled circumstances.

I have read all the posts,not one has made me move away from my original thoughts.

If you had two shops, selling the same goods,one was selling it for cash the other was giving it away free.how long would the shop having to buy and sell last compared with the one who was being supplied free and giving away free?

The money spent trying to catch the pushers etc is billions of dollars or pounds.

people could only get free treatment if the are registered with their doctor.

I then think it would be no use pushing to new people hoping to get them hooked

because they would get it free afterwards.so after years we could see the end of the crime's the killings the muggings and housebreaking.

it would be minimal compared to what is being spent now to combat it.

That is my opinion,I am not a brilliant academic,but I have common sense.

Then why not take a more sensible middle course and tax all recreational drugs in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, after legalizing them. I agree you'd still then have a (lower scale) criminal trade avoiding the taxation (as exists with alcohol and tobacco) but most buyers would at least be getting known quality and declared strengths. The existing retail system is geared to supplying legal recreational drugs of choice already. If you make them free there's no existing distribution route, and you'd have yet another hurdle to jump in getting public opinion to accept your argument.

spot wrote: Then why not take a more sensible middle course and tax all recreational drugs in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, after legalizing them. I agree you'd still then have a (lower scale) criminal trade avoiding the taxation (as exists with alcohol and tobacco) but most buyers would at least be getting known quality and declared strengths. The existing retail system is geared to supplying legal recreational drugs of choice already. If you make them free there's no existing distribution route, and you'd have yet another hurdle to jump in getting public opinion to accept your argument.




I wasn't talking about tax (they are robbers in their own right) I am talking about stopping all the street crime etc.and saving the governments money on what they are paying to eradicate it.

redman wrote: I have read all the posts,not one has made me move away from my original thoughts.

If you had two shops, selling the same goods,one was selling it for cash the other was giving it away free.how long would the shop having to buy and sell last compared with the one who was being supplied free and giving away free?

The money spent trying to catch the pushers etc is billions of dollars or pounds.

people could only get free treatment if the are registered with their doctor.

I then think it would be no use pushing to new people hoping to get them hooked

because they would get it free afterwards.so after years we could see the end of the crime's the killings the muggings and housebreaking.

it would be minimal compared to what is being spent now to combat it.

That is my opinion,I am not a brilliant academic,but I have common sense.


After reading the many posts here, I'm tending towards leaning to agree with red. As for the concerns that were already mentioned by Erin, Jives, I have to agree with them as well. Except that in those situations, be it Pilot, Cop, Driver, if they are already "users" then the problem already exists, so making it free would not seem to change the issue.:-2

I'm completely in favour of reducing the number of laws.

The studies all exist at this link

Prohibition is a great example of what happens when you take drugs away then give them back. The concept of "free drugs" is not valid though. Nothing else is free. Also, asking for government controlled drugs is more than a little weird. I only support the notions here under the premise that the government should stay away from our bodies and what we do to them. If an individual hurts someone they are responsible for restitution, if they hurt themselves they have a problem but it is their own.