Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burningnun)
    This just doesn't make sense. If heroin doesn't have a standard dose, then the standard dose is not lethal for the same reason that Predator is not lethal. I was assuming that you defined a standard dose as in a similar way the medical community has, as opposed to just "what smackheads take."
    Sorry, I mean the colloqiual standard dose, as in what most users take, is more lethal for heroin than for cocaine.

    However you were the one who made a positive assertion that heroin is less lethal in a standard dose. If there is no standard dose, this statement is not true. My point being, by what measurement of standard dose is heroin less lethal than cocaine?

    (Original post by burningnun)
    This seems like it's supposed to look like a fairly comprehensive analysis. Does this mean you disagree with my points about impurity and variable unknown concentration? Specifically, do you disagree that they are problems or do you disagree that they would be solved by legalisation?
    I agree there are problems but I think they're better addressed by providing heroin for addicts in hospital, something like Cooljack's idea above. I don't think you need to make it legal to buy without prescription in order to reduce the issues around impurity, as doing so won't solve those other issues I mention.

    (Original post by burningnun)
    My point about hospitals was contingent on a sensible definition of a standard dose, so your defining it as "something that is lethal but doesn't exist" makes the entire argument rather obsolete.
    What is a sensible standard dose? How do you come up with one for heroin? And more importantly, heroin is a drug where having to go to more than one shop to get more of it isn't going to be any kind of disincentive, because of how addictive it is and the need for users to continually up their dose to get the same effect.

    So in short, I don't think limiting sales to standard doses will be enough for heroin users, whereas it would be much more effective on less addictive drugs; and the drug experts views seem to be pretty clear that heroin is the most dangerous recreational drug, a view I entirely agree with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Sorry, I mean the colloqiual standard dose, as in what most users take, is more lethal for heroin than for cocaine.

    However you were the one who made a positive assertion that heroin is less lethal in a standard dose. If there is no standard dose, this statement is not true. My point being, by what measurement of standard dose is heroin less lethal than cocaine?
    I never said it was less lethal than cocaine, just that it wasn't lethal in what I would consider a standard dose.

    I agree there are problems but I think they're better addressed by providing heroin for addicts in hospital, something like Cooljack's idea above. I don't think you need to make it legal to buy without prescription in order to reduce the issues around impurity, as doing so won't solve those other issues I mention.
    Heroin users will not just mosy up to a hospital where they will be essentially locked up and weaned off for a painful few weeks or months, otherwise they would be doing that now. Hospitals are great things after something goes horribly wrong, whereas legalisation would give access to a clean supply before something goes horribly wrong. I don't think your idea solves the issues you mentioned. In fact I know it doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't be issues.

    What is a sensible standard dose? How do you come up with one for heroin? And more importantly, heroin is a drug where having to go to more than one shop to get more of it isn't going to be any kind of disincentive, because of how addictive it is and the need for users to continually up their dose to get the same effect.

    So in short, I don't think limiting sales to standard doses will be enough for heroin users, whereas it would be much more effective on less addictive drugs; and the drug experts views seem to be pretty clear that heroin is the most dangerous recreational drug, a view I entirely agree with.
    Well if I were in charge of someone's morphine, I'd titrate the IV up slowly until it has the desired effect and I can steal the guy's kidneys or whatever it is I'm doing. Then I'd record the dose, divide by bodyweight and do it lots more times, find the average and call that a standard dose. I'd record their sex too in case it turned out a different dose per bodyweight was needed for each. I imagine that's an approximation of how the medical community figured out how much to put in. Obviously such a definition is superfluous to the discussion we're having, but that is what I thought you meant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I still disagree. If you read some of the posts made a bit lower down this thread by Drogue he probably explains it better than me, but heroin is highly addictive. I've read a couple of books about heroin users and although this hardly makes me an expert I think it is pretty clear that it is a life ruining drug. Cocaine on the other hand is not, certainly not on the same level. Heroin gets 'out of control' much more easily and so there is not such a clear liberal argument imo.
    Not on the same level because it's snorted by celebrities and bankers not the kinds of characters you find in an Irvine Welsh novel but I suppose we shouldn't consider that. Heroin is highly addictive which is why I'm glad to see it recriminalised though I see you've, yet again, dodged the point about treatment programmes and their being funded out of the proceeds of the taxes you're implementing.

    If it is life ruining and dangerous then surely it is fundamental that we, the state, create institutions that can control it? And if that is true, then surely it is better that the people who control it are the hospitals, doctors, and specialist drug treatment centres that find their work frustrated because of the law which treats heroin addicts as criminals not as very ill people.

    I don't think you would disagree with me about the medical problems associated with heroin addiction but if you honestly do believe that by farming people off onto magic mushrooms you're going to stem the tide of self-destruction through the shift onto heroin then I don't think you've quite understood the snowball effect that often occurs. We need to treat these people and ameliorate their circumstances so that they don't run to heroin and I really don't think this bill appreciates the seriousness of it all. It takes a New Labour approach: taxation without purpose.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    After careful consideration I have decided to be pragmatic in this situation if the buyers of drugs are charged at a 60% tax rate on top of the selling price and the growers (where appropriate) are charged at a 5% tax on turnover on top of their corporation tax.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burningnun)
    Heroin users will not just mosy up to a hospital where they will be essentially locked up and weaned off for a painful few weeks or months, otherwise they would be doing that now. Hospitals are great things after something goes horribly wrong, whereas legalisation would give access to a clean supply before something goes horribly wrong. I don't think your idea solves the issues you mentioned. In fact I know it doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't be issues.
    I mean having a place where heroin addicts can mosy up and get their next fix administered by someone who knows how to use a needle and knows what a sensible dose is.

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    After careful consideration I have decided to be pragmatic in this situation if the buyers of drugs are charged at a 60% tax rate on top of the selling price and the growers (where appropriate) are charged at a 5% tax on turnover on top of their corporation tax.
    The tax on cigarettes is already much higher than that. Percentage taxes aren't so good for things like this, as the price can vary hugely when the social costs don't. The tax on cigarettes tends to be around 300%, because tobacco and cigarettes themselves have become an awful lot cheaper to produce than they used to. Cigarette tax is something like £4.50 per packet.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    I mean having a place where heroin addicts can mosy up and get their next fix administered by someone who knows how to use a needle and knows what a sensible dose is.


    The tax on cigarettes is already much higher than that. Percentage taxes aren't so good for things like this, as the price can vary hugely when the social costs don't. The tax on cigarettes tends to be around 300%, because tobacco and cigarettes themselves have become an awful lot cheaper to produce than they used to. Cigarette tax is something like £4.50 per packet.

    Ahh I see, didn't know that. Then I would definatly support a 300% plus tax on sales.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Not on the same level because it's snorted by celebrities and bankers not the kinds of characters you find in an Irvine Welsh novel but I suppose we shouldn't consider that.
    Mainly not on the same level because cocaine isn't as damaging, rather than the class or type of person who chooses to take it.

    (Original post by Adorno)
    Heroin is highly addictive which is why I'm glad to see it recriminalised though I see you've, yet again, dodged the point about treatment programmes and their being funded out of the proceeds of the taxes you're implementing.

    If it is life ruining and dangerous then surely it is fundamental that we, the state, create institutions that can control it? And if that is true, then surely it is better that the people who control it are the hospitals, doctors, and specialist drug treatment centres that find their work frustrated because of the law which treats heroin addicts as criminals not as very ill people.
    I agree, and the second reading will include something about this. Any ideas on what would be appreciated.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Not on the same level because it's snorted by celebrities and bankers not the kinds of characters you find in an Irvine Welsh novel but I suppose we shouldn't consider that. Heroin is highly addictive which is why I'm glad to see it recriminalised though I see you've, yet again, dodged the point about treatment programmes and their being funded out of the proceeds of the taxes you're implementing.

    If it is life ruining and dangerous then surely it is fundamental that we, the state, create institutions that can control it? And if that is true, then surely it is better that the people who control it are the hospitals, doctors, and specialist drug treatment centres that find their work frustrated because of the law which treats heroin addicts as criminals not as very ill people.

    I don't think you would disagree with me about the medical problems associated with heroin addiction but if you honestly do believe that by farming people off onto magic mushrooms you're going to stem the tide of self-destruction through the shift onto heroin then I don't think you've quite understood the snowball effect that often occurs. We need to treat these people and ameliorate their circumstances so that they don't run to heroin and I really don't think this bill appreciates the seriousness of it all. It takes a New Labour approach: taxation without purpose.
    I haven't tried to dodge any points here - I didn't realise I had done. It isn't on the same level because heroin is more dangerous, not just because of who takes it..
    I agree that the bill needs to deal with heroin problems in a different way to simply locking people up - that is an area in which the bill can be improved in the second reading. I believe that the overall principle of the bill still works with this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Mainly not on the same level because cocaine isn't as damaging, rather than the class or type of person who chooses to take it.
    Well I just think it sends out the wrong message that's all. That the consequences of a rich banker taking coke are less than those of a poor heroin addict from the east end of Glasgow or wherever. The state should really be sending out the same message to all drug users which is that, if we legalise all of them, this is the price you pay and your money will go to treat those who fall ill - rather like smoking and alcohol. Anyway, clearly I'm not going to get you to see why class, in this case, is important so I'll desist as my views have been expressed.

    I agree, and the second reading will include something about this. Any ideas on what would be appreciated.
    This is something that requires a lot more thought and not something that really ought to be rushed. Clearly funding for treatment programmes are essential but I would be quite uncertain about whether the state running of drugs would work if you basically turn a private act into a regulated public one. We need to be especially careful about the kinds of places we build and how well distributed they are.

    I do have one final question: is the drugs industry to be privately or state run?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I haven't tried to dodge any points here - I didn't realise I had done. It isn't on the same level because heroin is more dangerous, not just because of who takes it..
    Are you sat on Drogues shoulder :p:

    I agree that the bill needs to deal with heroin problems in a different way to simply locking people up - that is an area in which the bill can be improved in the second reading. I believe that the overall principle of the bill still works with this.
    That's not what I said; I said this law of yours treats heroin users as if they are criminals not as if they are very ill individuals. Locking people up is but one consequence of their being classed as criminals but it is not the only one. The entire industry and culture is clandestine and dangerous because it is criminalised and no amount of intimation that getting off on weed and 'shrooms will ensure that fewer people turn to heroin will convince me that the bill is anything but upside down in that regard. The bill penalises the very people who need our help the most. If the most dangerous drug is not the one most controlled through state institutions then the question about people suffering the social price of their habits cannot be true.

    The one drug which, following from the arguments you (the coalition) employ, should be legal in order to monitor and control it is, surely, heroin on the grounds that it is the most dangerous.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    I do have one final question: is the drugs industry to be privately or state run?
    Since most of the substances mentioned are already legally produced by private companies, I'd imagine they'd continue but with a wider audience (so I'd guess some more competitors). This bill doesn't set up a government body to produce them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Since most of the substances mentioned are already legally produced by private companies, I'd imagine they'd continue but with a wider audience (so I'd guess some more competitors). This bill doesn't set up a government body to produce them.
    Yeah, I was afraid that would be the case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Why would people be terribly addicted to the drugs this legalises? The vast majority of drug users aren't.
    If there's no problem of addiction then why are you proposing that shops may only sell two doses? I thought it was to hamper addiction. If it's just to discourage drug taking then again you seem to be horribly confused about the aims.

    Drug legalisation is predicated on the realisation that the State should not get involved in what people do to themselves. Finding sneaky ways to discourage activities the State frowns upon is illiberal and wrong.

    (Original post by Drogue)
    Taxes on other things are harder to do, though I intend to propose some. For example fatty food has no social cost if it's consumed as part of a sensible, balanced diet, yet healthy food can have a social cost if not eaten as part of a balanced diet. As such, finding a sensible way to tax fatty food is difficult. Having said that, since few people have a perfect diet so eating more fatty food or sweets tends to cause healthcare costs, I want to try and put together a bill to tax food that's bad for us more.
    And drugs are the same - providing a cost to society if abused not if used responsibly.

    Moreover, as an aside, it is worth noting that the cost to society is not one imposed by the users of drugs but by the State. Always the primary cost is the NHS. Yet if we didn't choose to pay for their healthcare then we wouldn't have to.

    (Original post by Drogue)
    Very addictive and harmful, with the addiction causing the harm because people consume it in greater and greater quantities. Tbh, I think those comparisons show a startling lack of knowledge about how addictive heroin is. It's not addictive in the sense that coffee, coke or chocolate is, and is far more addictive than tobacco. Tobacco withdrawl leads to cravings, whereas heroin withdrawl often leads to severe physiological conditions, even death, and in most cases a lifelong craving that leads to very high relapse rate.

    Heroin isn't a recreational drug, it's a lifelong addiction.
    Again, irrelevant. Even if heroin was lethal in 100% of cases it should still be legal to sell it and for people to buy it so long as it was clearly labelled as being lethal. As I said, drug legalisation is based on the State not interfering in what people do to themselves. Banning heroin seems to indicate that you do not accept this principle.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Are you sat on Drogues shoulder :p:
    Squark
    ..


    Actually I had actually already typed the same thing - but his wording was better, my internet is erratic so there was a bit of lag time...

    That's not what I said; I said this law of yours treats heroin users as if they are criminals not as if they are very ill individuals. Locking people up is but one consequence of their being classed as criminals but it is not the only one. The entire industry and culture is clandestine and dangerous because it is criminalised and no amount of intimation that getting off on weed and 'shrooms will ensure that fewer people turn to heroin will convince me that the bill is anything but upside down in that regard. The bill penalises the very people who need our help the most. If the most dangerous drug is not the one most controlled through state institutions then the question about people suffering the social price of their habits cannot be true.
    I'll just refer you to a suggestion made earlier in this thread (by cooljack) which is pretty reasonable in my opinion (more parroting ):


    I can understand criminalising heroin at larger quantities, obviously meant for distribution.. Smaller amounts taken off people who had it for personal use seems like it will just exaserbate the situation and make life more difficult for people stuck in a nigh on hopeless opiate addiction (people who inject really do as a last resort). Deaths only really occur from overdoses, complications from improper IV use and contaminated heroin. Pretty much all of these problems would be solved if they had administration clinics giving clean heroin under perscription to registered addicts monitering injections etc. They tried something similar recently and it worked quite well from what I recall.
    Now I don't know about the rest of the party and coalition, but I'd say that this is probably the way forward in terms of heroin. Creating a distribution network under controlled conditions such as this, and criminalising the large producers so that the actual victims of addiction are not pushed underground.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    If there's no problem of addiction then why are you proposing that shops may only sell two doses? I thought it was to hamper addiction. If it's just to discourage drug taking then again you seem to be horribly confused about the aims.
    As said in the bill, it's to reduce the chances of overdoses, which are the main cause of death from drug abuse.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Moreover, as an aside, it is worth noting that the cost to society is not one imposed by the users of drugs but by the State. Always the primary cost is the NHS. Yet if we didn't choose to pay for their healthcare then we wouldn't have to.
    But we do. Assuming we have an NHS is pretty sensible, since we do, and this House isn't about to abolish it.

    I'd also dispute that the NHS is the primary cost, since drug use has a huge impact on communities where it's widespread and on the economy.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Again, irrelevant. Even if heroin was lethal in 100% of cases it should still be legal to sell it and for people to buy it so long as it was clearly labelled as being lethal. As I said, drug legalisation is based on the State not interfering in what people do to themselves. Banning heroin seems to indicate that you do not accept this principle.
    Clearly, since I'm proposing a bill that legalises other drugs but criminalises heroin, I believe the state shouldn't interfere in people taking other drugs but should stop people taking heroin. I don't believe state non-interference in everything is a good principle, no. As I doubt you do since, IIRC, you still believe in having nationl defence and enforcing property rights? The difference between us is where we see the boundary between where the state should interfere and where it shouldn't.

    However from your last bill, it seems you do feel that the state should stop you taking mushrooms, piperazines and ketamine.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    As said in the bill, it's to reduce the chances of overdoses, which are the main cause of death from drug abuse.
    Do you really think it will be effective? There are laws in place to prevent the sale of alcohol to those intoxicated, yet it doesn't stop anyone from getting pissed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    As said in the bill, it's to reduce the chances of overdoses, which are the main cause of death from drug abuse.


    But we do. Assuming we have an NHS is pretty sensible, since we do, and this House isn't about to abolish it.

    I'd also dispute that the NHS is the primary cost, since drug use has a huge impact on communities where it's widespread and on the economy.


    Clearly, since I'm proposing a bill that legalises other drugs but criminalises heroin, I believe the state shouldn't interfere in people taking other drugs but should stop people taking heroin. I don't believe state non-interference in everything is a good principle, no. As I doubt you do since, IIRC, you still believe in having nationl defence and enforcing property rights? The difference between us is where we see the boundary between where the state should interfere and where it shouldn't.

    However from your last bill, it seems you do feel that the state should stop you taking mushrooms, piperazines and ketamine.
    Overdosing is primarily accidental caused by illegal drugs being supplied in unknown doses. The requirement to sell drugs in single doses that are clearly labelled prevents accidental overdosing. Deliberate overdosing is not prevented by your irritation and none of the State's business anyway.

    The point about the NHS is a general one not related to this House. I am pointing out that what the RL country does is basically say "we're going to pay for your healthcare...now pay us to pay for it".

    On the bit in bold - piss off. I thought I made it quite plain already that those drugs were not listed because of oversight only and that if a Bill is presented legalising "hard" drugs it will obviously be the intention to legalise "soft" ones too. So let's not be silly about that and pretend that my position is untenable or wrong.

    Now, your position is dodgy, I think. Yes heroin is addictive, but so what? Again, it's not the State's business if someone chooses to self harm. You're already proposing to tax them to cover the cost to society from their stupidity so let them be.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Do you really think it will be effective? There are laws in place to prevent the sale of alcohol to those intoxicated, yet it doesn't stop anyone from getting pissed.
    If the law meant you could only buy two beers in any bar or supermarket, I think it would reduce the amount of people who get very drunk. I don't think it'd be worth it though. For harder drugs, I think it is. It won't stop all overdoses, but it will reduce them by making it harder to take drugs in large quantities.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This should have been sent to cessation (sorry, I forgot about it) so I am doing so now.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I am withdrawing this.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.