Drug addiction should be viewed as a medical problem. Doctors and nurses, rather than police, should handle it. There should be high-street clinics, staffed by medical personnel, where addicts can receive supplies to be consumed on the premises.If someone chooses to take heroin I don't want to lock them up for it, but I don't want to pay for their hobby either. They have chosen to be engage in self indulgent and self destructive behavior so why on Earth should tax payers have to subsidise them?
I very much doubt that giving heroin aways for free will reduce consumption of the stuff any more than free bars would cut rates of alcoholism.
14 comments:
we already pay for their heroin via crime. junkies steal stuff, most theft is drug related. i agree that heroin shouldn't be free, but it should be available to adults at any chemist, for pence.
Hmm, develop this line of thought to its natural conclusion.
So that's cheap booze on tap at chemists for alcoholics, while the rest of us suffer the NuPuritans telling us drink tax must rise because of the dangers of cheap booze..?
It's already happening. At Charing Cross station four weeks ago I bought four cans of M&S lager for £1.60.
As Theodore Dalrymple points out in his new book 'Not With A Bang But A Whimper' (highly recommended to Unenlightened Commentary readers), heroin addiction is not a medical problem.
Proof? When Mao told Chinese users that he was introducing a policy of shooting them in the head, millions gave up overnight.
As Dalrymple says, not something we would wish to do here, but it is proof that it's not medical. After all, if Mao had tried to cure arthritics in this way he would not have had a great deal of success.
Maybe I'm a bit sheltered but I doubt that alcoholics drink the piss weak lager that you can buy from M&S for £1.60.
Then again maybe Matthew is finally admitting to himself (and the circle) that he has a problem:-)
I've not read that Dalrymple essay but given the gap between reality and claims of tractor & steel production in Mao's China, I am instinctively cautious about claims about reducing Heroin addiction.
In the real world, giving it to them for free does reduce consumption, as there is no incentive for dealers to supply the stuff at what they hope will be huge profits.
But I agree that heroin is not particularly a medical problem and that it should be treated just like fags and booze, i.e. legalised, regulated and taxed appropriately (as Anon says, the raw material costs pennies, but street price for a fix is [£10? £20?] so if chemists sell it for £2 a pop, everybody is happy.
Except the dealers, bent coppers and prison officers, all the drugs quangista, the Daily Mail tendency and the USA. Which makes the rest of us even happier!
All you legalisation wonks - willing to legislate the precise levels (to the atom) which constitute intoxication? Fancy your train or taxi driver still having little moments from yesterday's fix?
All this BS about 'the cost' of illegal drugs in terms of crime ignores what the future cost of easily available, low-priced hard drugs in *welfare* would be, seeing as there are so many drug addicts who lead highly productive lives without taking a penny off the State...oh, wait a minute. They don't.
You'd think a hardcore researcher like Mr Wadsworth would be able to take the next step and think this through to where it ends up when you make high-level intoxicants cheap, easy and legal to obtain.
I'm in favour of legalisation, but only if the State stops giving one single penny of taxpayers money towards any form of treatment programmes whatsoever. If it's legal, it's a lifetsyle choice that I shouldn't have to sodding pay for. If you voluntarily touch this stuff, you're a waste of space.
Here endeth today's ranty 'reactionary' lesson.
Anon 9:08- I've read it and it is interesting. Here is a video of a speech where Dalrymple outlines his position. He gives the Mao example in the second part here at 4:20.
DSD- Surely all the difficulties posed by legalising drugs also apply currently to alcohol? Anyway I agree with your penultimate paragraph, we shouldn't be paying for treatment programmes.
"DSD- Surely all the difficulties posed by legalising drugs also apply currently to alcohol?"
The only one I can think of that doesn't is the easy test for intoxication, the equivalent to the breathalyser.
I know they've had some success with 'wipes' for cannbis, but given the large number of intoxicants, a quick, easy to administer 'You're stoned' test doesn't seem likely anytime soon...
my opening post made no reference to tax-payers' money.
"All this BS about 'the cost' of illegal drugs in terms of crime ignores what the future cost of easily available, low-priced hard drugs in *welfare* would be, seeing as there are so many drug addicts who lead highly productive lives without taking a penny off the State...oh, wait a minute. They don't."
this statement is false. approximately 75% of aquisitive crime in England is caused by 10% of junkies. let them buy it cheap and they won't have to steal. pushers would go out of business, too. the only reason there is a criminal problem is because of prohibition. DSD also links drug-dependancy to welfare-statism, he has put the cart before the horse, as drug abuse is a symptom of, and escape from, the poverty trap. people with lots of money can fuction perfectly well with a "habit" - it's the crushing cost of a fix, caused by it's very illegality, whichj leads to the problems.
as for the straw-man of public drivers being under the influence of drugs, "what ifs?" don't make a logical contribution. what if the RAF all bought heroin? why not, if it's suddenly cheap?
no, that argument is fallacious.
"approximately 75% of aquisitive crime in England is caused by 10% of junkies. "
In the 2nd Theodore Dalrymple video I linked to earlier he makes the point that most heroin addicts in prison were criminals before they were addicts.
If that is the case the relationship between drugs and crime might simply be that the sort of people who take drugs and the the sort of people who commit crime are quite similar rather than one causing the other.
If I say I have an alcohol problem, do you think they'll give out free real ale?
Ross, some addicts in prison could well be "bad" before they became junkies. nevertheless, rich drug-abusers, (as i said) such as showbiz types, don't seem to become thieves. if heroin is expensive, and you have no money, you will steal to obtain money for the drug. if it is ridiculously cheap, you won't. i would disagree that drug addiction necessarily leads to crime, but prohibition (high cost, drug-pushers etc) makes crime far more likely as a consequence.
James, i often read your comments and you are generally sensible. not this time. if you say you have an alcohol problem, you may be pointed towards alcoholics anonymous, or an off-license. the choice is yours. the product (or help to wean yourself off it) is readily available. both are cheap. no crime is necessary. how many alcoholics get done for theft? compared to how many druggies? alcohol being yer actual drug, why discriminate between opiates and alcohol? it's illogical.
make it cheap, decriminalise it, and (as is the case in Portugal, look it up) crime falls, police resources increase, drug-abuse decreases.
the war on drugs is lost, and worse, was pointless.
Post a Comment