Dumb remarks from around the world

[STEED]

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/liv...&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Dose this person realise this means paying more tax.

No thank you.

[joea]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[STEED]

What ever happen to Labour's Drugs Za? What's his name Keith something.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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?

Here's how I like the war on drugs (and drunk drivers)

"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.

[Dowly]

One bullet per one junkie. That´s cheap.

[fredbass]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Here's how I like the war on drugs (and drunk drivers)

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. :hmm:

I guess I'll just have to stay home and play more SH3, since I can't go out and have fun anywhere.

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Dowly

One bullet per one junkie. That´s cheap.

Took the words right out of my mouth.:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Today's dumb remark: "“The world is rapidly becoming Ahmadinejadised!"

[jumpy]

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]

Originally Posted by fredbass

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. :hmm:

I guess I'll just have to stay home and play more SH3, since I can't go out and have fun anywhere.

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.

[STEED]

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]

Here in austria it's not 0.8 but 0.5. It works.