Jump to content

Our drugs policy has failed


ChezGiven
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good article. When you look at something like heroin usage, you have to think that the casualties of the 'war on drugs' are the addicts/users and their loved ones. Apart from the damage they do to their bodies they are often so engaged in the act of procuring drugs that the rest of their life, including the ability to look for work, look after their kids and so on falls by the wayside. I'm not saying these people are innocent victims but the current policies do little to help those who want it. I would advocate GPs supplying heroin to addicts but with certain caveats: They would have to register as addicts and the drugs would be adminstered on the premises. They would then, under the supervision of the GP, take increasingly smaller doses. I'm not suggesting this would be a perfect solution by any means but I think it would help those who genuinely wanted to give up. You can just imagine the storm the newspapers would whip up though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other casualities are the prison services and hence the tax payer. I can see policy changing though as the article points out, attitudes are changing. When they do change, you have to expect that at least some of the media will be brought along. In which case the debate will become reasonable.

 

Our relationship with the US will also hold us back from embracing sensible change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. When you look at something like heroin usage, you have to think that the casualties of the 'war on drugs' are the addicts/users and their loved ones. Apart from the damage they do to their bodies they are often so engaged in the act of procuring drugs that the rest of their life, including the ability to look for work, look after their kids and so on falls by the wayside. I'm not saying these people are innocent victims but the current policies do little to help those who want it. I would advocate GPs supplying heroin to addicts but with certain caveats: They would have to register as addicts and the drugs would be adminstered on the premises. They would then, under the supervision of the GP, take increasingly smaller doses. I'm not suggesting this would be a perfect solution by any means but I think it would help those who genuinely wanted to give up. You can just imagine the storm the newspapers would whip up though.

 

Like your thinking Halex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good bit in article:

 

"Many of the drugs that are illegal do not necessarily cause any greater damage than alcohol or tobacco, both of which when taken to excess are debilitating or lethal. So if drugs cannot be eradicated, then the principal object of public policy, instead of trying to criminalise as many people as possible, should be to discourage their use on health grounds and mitigate the harm they cause. Furthermore, most of us felt, without being excessively libertarian about it, that if people are harming neither themselves nor others, the state has no reason to intervene.

"

 

 

Must be the way forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other casualities are the prison services and hence the tax payer. I can see policy changing though as the article points out, attitudes are changing. When they do change, you have to expect that at least some of the media will be brought along. In which case the debate will become reasonable.

 

Our relationship with the US will also hold us back from embracing sensible change.

And the people who get their property stolen by addicts too. Not saying my suggestion would stop all that btw. But I think it would help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

What's people's takes on companies doing random drug tests?  I'm not a taker of drugs personally, but my old company used to do random drink and drug tests on employees - literally you would be sat at your desk, the phone would ring telling you you had been selected, and you had to immediately go and submit a sample.

 

Anyway, a lad got sacked basically because he smoked joints outside of work.  Which imo was ludicrous, but I guess he's got no legal right to reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's people's takes on companies doing random drug tests?  I'm not a taker of drugs personally, but my old company used to do random drink and drug tests on employees - literally you would be sat at your desk, the phone would ring telling you you had been selected, and you had to immediately go and submit a sample.

 

Anyway, a lad got sacked basically because he smoked joints outside of work.  Which imo was ludicrous, but I guess he's got no legal right to reply?

 

The sensible ans is what you do out of work is your own business as long as it isn't affecting your work. London's banking and financial sector would collapse without cocaine tbf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

The company was owned by a family of Mormons, hence the hard line.  Works parties had zero alcohol - literally, jugs of orange juice on the tables - and a free bar was completely out of the question. 

 

The boss in the Chicago office (an English bloke) used to throw a Xmas bash at his house with loads of booze, but swore everyone to secrecy, because if the bosses found out he'd be in bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's people's takes on companies doing random drug tests? 

 

Anyway, a lad got sacked basically because he smoked joints outside of work.  Which imo was ludicrous, but I guess he's got no legal right to reply?

 

I think its a ridiculous thing for companies to do.

 

No wonder your mate got caught, i would have at least gone round the corner.  ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other casualities are the prison services and hence the tax payer. I can see policy changing though as the article points out, attitudes are changing. When they do change, you have to expect that at least some of the media will be brought along. In which case the debate will become reasonable.

 

Our relationship with the US will also hold us back from embracing sensible change.

And the people who get their property stolen by addicts too. Not saying my suggestion would stop all that btw. But I think it would help.

I think the GP led addiction service works fine for Heroin but i cant see that happening for crack.

 

Crack is probably the biggest problem for crime but i cant see a sensible solution there. Its a highly powerful drug that can turn you utterly psychotic if you abuse it, you would want people to come off it but how? Ween them onto normal coke? You'd get non-addicts signing up just for the free chop in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other casualities are the prison services and hence the tax payer. I can see policy changing though as the article points out, attitudes are changing. When they do change, you have to expect that at least some of the media will be brought along. In which case the debate will become reasonable.

 

Our relationship with the US will also hold us back from embracing sensible change.

And the people who get their property stolen by addicts too. Not saying my suggestion would stop all that btw. But I think it would help.

I think the GP led addiction service works fine for Heroin but i cant see that happening for crack.

 

Crack is probably the biggest problem for crime but i cant see a sensible solution there. Its a highly powerful drug that can turn you utterly pschotic if you abuse it, you would want people to come off it but how? Ween them onto normal coke? You'd get non-addicts signing up just for the free chop in that case.

I agree, Crack is different problem and one for which that solution wouldn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other casualities are the prison services and hence the tax payer. I can see policy changing though as the article points out, attitudes are changing. When they do change, you have to expect that at least some of the media will be brought along. In which case the debate will become reasonable.

 

Our relationship with the US will also hold us back from embracing sensible change.

And the people who get their property stolen by addicts too. Not saying my suggestion would stop all that btw. But I think it would help.

I think the GP led addiction service works fine for Heroin but i cant see that happening for crack.

 

Crack is probably the biggest problem for crime but i cant see a sensible solution there. Its a highly powerful drug that can turn you utterly pschotic if you abuse it, you would want people to come off it but how? Ween them onto normal coke? You'd get non-addicts signing up just for the free chop in that case.

I agree, Crack is different problem and one for which that solution wouldn't work.

 

In this case, the traditional method of education at a young age has to be the primary means of dealing with the problem. The level of violence associated with the drug is unbelievable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the supply end, surely they can do better to cut off the supply?

Don't you think governments have tried that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the supply end, surely they can do better to cut off the supply?

Don't you think governments have tried that?

 

 

Just legalise the lot and stop wasting money on this. It will settle down after a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the supply end, surely they can do better to cut off the supply?

Don't you think governments have tried that?

 

I think they have to continue to try and keep a lid on the crack cocaine issue but reductions in supply of one drug lead to either inventions of new ways of getting high or refining other drugs into more potent forms. Crystal meth being an example.

 

I also think that people dont just get high on the drug, they get high on the culture surrounding it. Crack dealing makes you into a small time gangster. Make it legal and it turns you into a corner shop.

 

Interesting quote from wiki

 

One of the earliest uses of amphetamine occurred during World War II when the German military dispensed the stimulant, and condoms, under the trade name Crack [5]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Knightrider

What gets me is the supply end, surely they can do better to cut off the supply?

Don't you think governments have tried that?

 

Of course, but obviously with little success, which is my point. Surely they can do better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Knightrider

What's people's takes on companies doing random drug tests?  I'm not a taker of drugs personally, but my old company used to do random drink and drug tests on employees - literally you would be sat at your desk, the phone would ring telling you you had been selected, and you had to immediately go and submit a sample.

 

Anyway, a lad got sacked basically because he smoked joints outside of work.  Which imo was ludicrous, but I guess he's got no legal right to reply?

 

I think it is fair, no company wants a druggie working for them. That said, if someone is caught using drugs via one of these tests, I don't think they should be sacked, but warned and helped maybe, but then is that a company's role?! Iffy ground but I wouldn't be adverse to a drugs test as I don't take drugs, used to, a lot, but even when I did, I wouldn't have no complaints because I know I wouldn't want a druggie manning my phones, or dealing with my customers, or driving my vans, or doing my clients' books, etc. etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's people's takes on companies doing random drug tests?  I'm not a taker of drugs personally, but my old company used to do random drink and drug tests on employees - literally you would be sat at your desk, the phone would ring telling you you had been selected, and you had to immediately go and submit a sample.

 

Anyway, a lad got sacked basically because he smoked joints outside of work.  Which imo was ludicrous, but I guess he's got no legal right to reply?

 

I think it is fair, no company wants a druggie working for them. That said, if someone is caught using drugs via one of these tests, I don't think they should be sacked, but warned and helped maybe, but then is that a company's role?! Iffy ground but I wouldn't be adverse to a drugs test as I don't take drugs, used to, a lot, but even when I did, I wouldn't have no complaints because I know I wouldn't want a druggie manning my phones, or dealing with my customers, or driving my vans, or doing my clients' books, etc. etc.

 

Would you want a 'drinkie' doing that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HTT you wouldnt want someone who smokes the odd spliff 'doing your books'? Why not? I dont think anyone should work intoxicated. How would smoking a spliff in the evening affect a person's ability to do a job?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HTT you wouldnt want someone who smokes the odd spliff 'doing your books'? Why not? I dont think anyone should work intoxicated. How would smoking a spliff in the evening affect a person's ability to do a job?

 

 

 

if theyre caught by the test then surely theyre intoxicated? if theyre not i guess its fine in the case of alcohol/hash but anything more .... hmm probably questionable. even those two become questionable if its an addiction

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...