View Full Version : Dumb remarks from around the world
Right I shall start with this one.
A senior police officer said today heroin addicts should be prescribed the drugs on the NHS to stop them committing crime. Howard Roberts, deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police told the Association of Chief Police Officers' conference on drugs it would cost £12,000 a year for each addict to be treated this way.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417926&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Dose this person realise this means paying more tax. :damn:
No thank you.
Hmmm what if it saves more tax in the long run, I mean is crime more expensive than giving people drugs? I am just throwing that out there not saying anyone should do that.
Spoon 11th
11-22-06, 03:08 PM
I read years ago it costs 9M marks (1.5M euros) per untreated on the loose stealing junkie per year for the finnish society. It's cheaper to give them subutex and keep them under sort of constant surveillance.
bookworm_020
11-22-06, 06:53 PM
But wouldn't they want to have a fix for the there cravings between each issue of precribed drugs? I could see a black market happening here.
XabbaRus
11-22-06, 07:01 PM
Not if it is done right.
Back in the 50's in Britain there were registered addicts who got a regular morphine shot.
This is the problem, people think 'junkies' can't function, but it is usually when they are off the drug for the short periods between fixes that they are screwed.
A morphine addict with regular controlled doses can lead a normal productive life. When the government had the monopoly they could control the access and the quality. Combine it with a drug therapy programme and you wean them off it. £12,000 is a lot less than what it costs to keep some junkie in the nick for a year.
If the government took back its monopoly it could result in dealers in heroin being taken out by commercial means. Also it could benefit those countries that produce teh raw material. Western governments could by all they need plus the surplus which they could junk, in a reciprical programme they could help them convert from the heroin crop to something more useful.
I don't think it is such a bad idea. Better than nothing and current drug policies don't seem to work.
What ever happen to Labour's Drugs Za? What's his name Keith something.
Onkel Neal
11-22-06, 08:04 PM
Not if it is done right.
£12,000 is a lot less than what it costs to keep some junkie in the nick for a year.
Ok, but I want my £12,000 in cash. Why should these losers get money from lawful taxpayers? :arrgh!:
Here's how I like the war on drugs (and drunk drivers) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15852728/)
"We're serious about impacting drunk drivers within our city," says police Chief Jerry Dyer.
That's putting it mildly.
Fresno hired 80 more traffic cops and pays for them mostly through vehicle impounds.
In other words, "violators are paying for their own enforcement," says Dyer.
:up:
One bullet per one junkie. That´s cheap. :yep:
fredbass
11-22-06, 09:00 PM
Here's how I like the war on drugs (and drunk drivers) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15852728/)
"We're serious about impacting drunk drivers within our city," says police Chief Jerry Dyer.
That's putting it mildly.
Fresno hired 80 more traffic cops and pays for them mostly through vehicle impounds.
In other words, "violators are paying for their own enforcement," says Dyer.
:up:
Well that's all fine and dandy, but...
Maybe what annoys me is the level of alcohol which is considered the limit you can have. Come on. 0.08???? That's not much at all. Rediculous as far as I'm concerned. That's like a couple of mild beers isn't it?
I bet 90 percent of people who drink alcohol have been on the road illegally hundreds of times. So what's my point? Well I guess my main point is that if they did their job perfectly in giving DUI's to everybody that would fail a thorough test, then you'd remove 1/2 of the people on the road like all the people who drive for a living and on and on and on. I'd venture to guess that the welfare of our economy would be effected very negatively.
We'd have to shut down our business because we wouldn't be able to find qualified workers since they need to drive while working.
Hmm, so much for going out on the town on the weekend for some entertainment. There wouldn't be any entertainment because there wouldn't be any customers and then the establishments would have to close. :damn: :hmm:
I guess I'll just have to stay home and play more SH3, :know: since I can't go out and have fun anywhere. :roll:
d@rk51d3
11-22-06, 10:27 PM
One bullet per one junkie. That´s cheap. :yep:
Took the words right out of my mouth.:rotfl:
The Avon Lady
11-23-06, 12:50 AM
Today's dumb remark: "“The world is rapidly becoming Ahmadinejadised! (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/22/the-world-is-rapidly-becoming-ahmadinejadised/)"
Well, I think the idea for sorting out smackheads is a pragmatic one, far better than burying our heads in the sand and saying 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' over and over again.
All of the old ways of dealing with addicts have not really done anything to reduce any of the associated crime problems with them- answer: remove the criminal element for addicts procurement for their dependency as part of an ongoing treatment program.
Result: no more black market, cleaner addicts and proper monitored conditions for helping people who so obviously cannot help themselves.
I think the chap putting forward this idea has a point, having been at the sharp end of dealing with these sort of issues. Unfortunately I have a nagging suspicion that none of the politicians who might have the power to do something about this will touch this idea with a bargepole. Their careers and public face being of far more import to them than helping out a bunch of people who have fallen so far through the gaps in our society that they can only rely on the charity and goodwill of others to help them change the way their lives are. Such topics are far too controversial for a politician to stake his or her precious reputation on. That is far more sickening to me than the fact that this country has a heroin problem.
Bold steps are required to deal with this problem afresh and yet I seriously doubt we will see any public figures actually taking any.
XabbaRus
11-23-06, 08:16 AM
Here's how I like the war on drugs (and drunk drivers) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15852728/)
"We're serious about impacting drunk drivers within our city," says police Chief Jerry Dyer.
That's putting it mildly.
Fresno hired 80 more traffic cops and pays for them mostly through vehicle impounds.
In other words, "violators are paying for their own enforcement," says Dyer.
:up:
Well that's all fine and dandy, but...
Maybe what annoys me is the level of alcohol which is considered the limit you can have. Come on. 0.08???? That's not much at all. Rediculous as far as I'm concerned. That's like a couple of mild beers isn't it?
I bet 90 percent of people who drink alcohol have been on the road illegally hundreds of times. So what's my point? Well I guess my main point is that if they did their job perfectly in giving DUI's to everybody that would fail a thorough test, then you'd remove 1/2 of the people on the road like all the people who drive for a living and on and on and on. I'd venture to guess that the welfare of our economy would be effected very negatively.
We'd have to shut down our business because we wouldn't be able to find qualified workers since they need to drive while working.
Hmm, so much for going out on the town on the weekend for some entertainment. There wouldn't be any entertainment because there wouldn't be any customers and then the establishments would have to close. :damn: :hmm:
I guess I'll just have to stay home and play more SH3, :know: since I can't go out and have fun anywhere. :roll:
i have a big issue with what you said about 0.8 being not much, just a couple of mild beers. Tell that to my cousin. Oh you can't he's dead due to a drunk driver.
.08 in absolute terms might not be much but what is not much for you might be a lot for someone else.
They should just make it a straight 0, you don't drink and drive full stop.
I must be in the 10% though as I have never had a drink and then drove. Your making a fair few assumptions and that you seem to think it is ok to have a couple of drinks and then drive.
I agree with XabbaRus on this one about drinking and driving, if your drinking don't drive end of story.
I used too work with a guy many years ago who lost his licence from drink driving and got it back after a period of time, he never collected his driving licence from the police station because he likes to drink.
The Noob
11-23-06, 12:08 PM
Here in austria it's not 0.8 but 0.5. It works.
fredbass
11-23-06, 08:15 PM
Your making a fair few assumptions and that you seem to think it is ok to have a couple of drinks and then drive.
Yes I do. :yep: And there are hundreds of thousands of honest, hard working, descent people who help this world be a better place who stop by a bar on their way home from work and have a few beers and then go home. They don't deserve a DUI for testing 0.08 blood alcohol level. If someone at that level has gotten himself in an accident and possibly injured or killed someone, then I have serious doubts that the alcohol was a contributing factor in the reasons for the situation.
Horatio
11-23-06, 10:04 PM
It's 0.05% in Australia.
Tchocky
11-24-06, 03:52 AM
Right I shall start with this one.
A senior police officer said today heroin addicts should be prescribed the drugs on the NHS to stop them committing crime. Howard Roberts, deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police told the Association of Chief Police Officers' conference on drugs it would cost £12,000 a year for each addict to be treated this way.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417926&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Dose this person realise this means paying more tax. :damn:
No thank you.
the cost of something shouldnt be the only basis on which its to be judged. I dont think it's a bad idea, putting junkies in jail doesnt work, because it doesnt make sense, so another approach would be welcome
the cost of something shouldnt be the only basis on which its to be judged. I dont think it's a bad idea, putting junkies in jail doesnt work, because it doesnt make sense, so another approach would be welcome
I heard on the radio yesterday the N.H.S is now giving junkies free heroine at the cost of the tax payer. :nope:
Spoon 11th
11-24-06, 07:17 AM
I heard on the radio yesterday the N.H.S is now giving junkies free heroine at the cost of the tax payer. :nope:
I made a quick googling. This from a trial: The result of giving out free heroine is less crime and vanishing dealers so no more people will be able buy the stuff and get hooked. Society wins. Better yet would be giving out buprenorphine this way the ex-junkies would be able to go to work and take care of their children for example. Society wins hugely. Stupidest thing would be throwing them into prison.
XabbaRus
11-24-06, 07:42 AM
Your making a fair few assumptions and that you seem to think it is ok to have a couple of drinks and then drive.
Yes I do. :yep: And there are hundreds of thousands of honest, hard working, descent people who help this world be a better place who stop by a bar on their way home from work and have a few beers and then go home. They don't deserve a DUI for testing 0.08 blood alcohol level. If someone at that level has gotten himself in an accident and possibly injured or killed someone, then I have serious doubts that the alcohol was a contributing factor in the reasons for the situation.
You make it sound so simple, ignoring the fact that one beer can have different effects on different people.
But you go ahead. But IF you have an accident after having a couple of drinks in the pub, and IF that involves a fatality I hope you remember this conversation.
I heard on the radio yesterday the N.H.S is now giving junkies free heroine at the cost of the tax payer. :nope:
I made a quick googling. This from a trial: The result of giving out free heroine is less crime
And I still have to pay higher taxes any way you look at it I'm snooked.
TteFAboB
11-24-06, 09:19 AM
I heard on the radio yesterday the N.H.S is now giving junkies free heroine at the cost of the tax payer. :nope:
Who's supplying the opium and/or refining it? How many bids were offered besides the winner and who is he/they?
Wim Libaers
11-24-06, 03:04 PM
I heard on the radio yesterday the N.H.S is now giving junkies free heroine at the cost of the tax payer. :nope:
Who's supplying the opium and/or refining it? How many bids were offered besides the winner and who is he/they?
Intercepted by customs perhaps?
waste gate
11-24-06, 04:03 PM
Have we heard from skybird lately. He's always good for something long winded and dumb.
Have we heard from skybird lately. He's always good for something long winded and dumb.
Are I see your trying to provoke a reaction, Skybird is far too cool to fall for that one.
waste gate
11-24-06, 05:13 PM
Have we heard from skybird lately. He's always good for something long winded and dumb.
Are I see your trying to provoke a reaction, Skybird is far too cool to fall for that one.
Not PC enough I guess.
Not PC enough I guess.
:rotfl:
d@rk51d3
11-24-06, 06:15 PM
.......Result: no more black market, cleaner addicts and proper monitored conditions for helping people who so obviously cannot help themselves.
Cannot help themselves? Most choose not to help themselves.
.......Result: no more black market, cleaner addicts and proper monitored conditions for helping people who so obviously cannot help themselves.
Cannot help themselves? Most choose not to help themselves. Have you ever been an addict? Have you ever felt the craving for a drug that your body is telling you you need?
Try this one out. Ever been so hungry that you're dying to get home and make a sandwich? Take that impression and imagine it being far far worse. You can't marginalize addiction. People have lost everything to it whether they tried or not.
As for giving the addicts a regular dosage it is a method that is proven to work. Not only that but it is preventative rather than reactive. Tough laws and more cops doens't do anything for addicts needing a fix. The fact is that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibiting drugs and treating the users like criminals only denys them the respect and sympathy of society further taking them down.
Have you ever also considered the why involved in ther addiction? People don't do drugs for no reason. Heroine is just like Morphine but instead of dealing with physical pain it deals with emotional pain. Im not justifying it as a means to deal with emotional issues but many people begin their drug use at an early age when still a teen. Teens with no support system and no parents and a dysfunctional social welfare system often fall into it as a means of escaping reality. These people were failed by everyone. That isn't everyone and certainly many addicts are their own creations. However we cannot just label these people as self indulgant and use that as a reason to complain about taxes.
Further to all that drug addicts are a strain on our society. Period. They are a problem. We have been trying to deal with this problem for decades and so far all of our conservative draconian policies have failed. We have been using a reactive punitive policy. WHy do addicts steal? To pay for their drugs. Why are drugs expensive? Because they are illegal and the criminals that sell them have a monopoly over addicts who effectively have no will to resist. Its a fact that crime and crime prevention (ie. cops, isurance, court trials, prison cells) cost the tax payers alot of money.
However what if giving an addict a drug twice a day at the cost of the government was able to prevent the crimes, the deaths, the profit of criminals, and the ensuing strain on the prison and justice system? What if an injection that cost a buck or less was able to prevent a crime that would tally up to costing thousands? What if doing this gave a man or woman with no hope or will the means to get back some control and save their life?
How does all that sound bad? I haven't heard a single argument so far that has proven how this isn't effective. All I've heard is resentment over tax dollars going to pay for someone else's trouble. But this stubborn conservative nonsense is just that. If it would cost you less in terms of law enforcement and welfare support to prevent it all before it starts why then would anyone who is obcessed with taxes resist?
Its in society's best interst to do this. Save a few lives, save ALOT of money.
I can't see anyone being able to tell me that the status quo is working. The conventional wisdom that drives the War on Drugs is incorrect and outdated.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.