| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Time for a re-think on drugs law ? | |
| Posted by: | Tom Forde | |
| Date/Time: | 01/10/13 12:36:00 |
| "If someone is addicted to heroin or other hard drug, they should have access to treatment through the NHS." They do. Get your NHS methadone here: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/Herointreatment.aspx "In several places in the world initiatives have been launched to provide addicts with needles etc and the results have been wholly good." Here is a needle exchange on the Golborne Road, Ladbroke Grove, a short hop from us here in W4: http://www.blenheimcdp.org.uk/ "But then the idiotic war on drugs was launched and heroin addiction mushroomed, as did the gangs feeding the demand. Just like prohibition in the US helped the growth of the Mafia... Once it became legal to sell alcohol again in 1933 organised crime [in the US] was greatly reduced." Organised crime in the US was, is still is, partly fuelled by corruption involving law enforcement and government officials. Once serious efforts began in the late 80s/early 90s onwards at district attorney level to tackle organised crime in, say, New York for example, its influence has been reduced, though certainly not eradicated. Surely, the point missing from the pro-legislation arguments presented here is that most hard drug use is not by addicts - it is recreational; the estate agent snorting coke at the weekend, the teenager taking ecstasy at a house party. The actual number of addicts is very small. Most drug dealing is for recreational use. By legalising most drugs as suggested at the start of this thread, surely we would just be encouraging even greater recreational use of hard drugs? And if drugs are given out to addicts on the NHS, how do we define an addict and decide who gets them for free? Surely, every heavy recreational user of drugs - and general drug-taking layabout/semi-criminal class person - would declare themselves an addict to obtain their usual stuff for free? |