The Policeman's Blog

Well David here you have probably got it in a nutshell. The heroin addiction (or indeed any 'addiction') is merely the excuse for being a weak and pathetic human being, able to sponge on others simply by using the excuse of their addiction to justify their own patheticness. There is no real answer although I personally would legalise all drugs and make them easy to obtain. This would reduce crime levels significantly, and allow officers more time to deal with 'real' crime. Of course, the whole addiction industry would be up in arms, and a few more people might even overdose. Uncharitably, I would have no issue if these worthless individuals were all to kill themselves. Sure there would be some people who would mourn their passing, (mainly drug dealers and parents I suspect) but in the long run, society as a whole would be better off. No doubt many drug dealers would be against such a move to take away their income, but I am sure they would find other uses for their talents, such as they are - who knows, they may even have to work for a living.
 

According to the following study, called Rat Park opiates are not addictive.

Check this in the wikipedia link but the way I heard the story; the researcher did studies on rats that seemed to prove that opiates were addictive. He looked at the experiments and thought, 'hang on, if I were in some crappy cage with the choice of taking opiates or not taking opiates; I'd take the opiates: but does that mean that opiates are addictive?'

He went on to build rat park - a massive cage. It was a rat heaven; lots of space, lots of entertainment (ie tubes to run through etc) and other rats for company. When rats were given the choice of opiates - they declined. When their food / water was adulterated by opiates for a week or so, and they were again given the choice of whether or not to take opiates: they declined, ie they drank the non-adulterated water (ate the non-adulterated food) rather than the opiate stuff.

Read the wikipedia link for more details.

Of course, there is anecdotal evidence from friends of mine. One of whom was a chemist at one of the London Universities. This was in the sixties - he was adamant that heroin was not addictive. He ordered some heroin, took it for a month or so, then stopped. No addictive tendencies. This was unreported and was prior to Rat Park.

So, make people's existence crap and they resort to drugs. When did Holbein (sp?) create Gin Alley? Was that a reflection of the poisonous nature of the gin at the time or the social conditions?

Interesting post, officer.
 

Heroin is just an excuse, like all the other excuses.
It's hard work, ploughing a straight furrow, and some people can't be arsed. It is as simple as that.

I've just read your book, Dave, and I particularly liked the part where you scratch your head and wonder how it's come about that the defence brief now stands up in court and says, of his burglar client, 'In his defence, sir, he takes heroin.'

As you correctly point out, the prosecution should be standing up and saying, 'Not only is he a burglar, your honour, but he also takes heroin.'
 

Excellent thread, and one not enough debated. Government is far too willing to throw money at a perceived problem because of the advice of 'experts' with vested interests.
 

I once ran across a heroin addict who completely reshaped my thinking about heroin addiction.

She was a high-flyer at one of the Big Three here in Detroit, and she was a Stone Junkie.

She would cop before going to work (very early in the morning), go on the nod for 20 minutes, and then spend all morning making million-dollar decisions. At lunch, she'd slide away in her fancy car to some anonymous spot, cop again, go on the nod, and be back at her desk on time for another afternoon of power work. She was very, very good at her work, very successful and headed for the top.

She travelled a lot on business, and she could turn it on or off as required - she never used while away from home. She had a secure, safe source, and she could well-afford her habit - which was all it was. A habit. Not an 'addiction', not a 'disease', not a dreadful, uncontrollable monster riding her life, but a bad habit. She was only caught by a pure coincidence, totally unrelated to her habit.

When I read 'Romancing Opiates', I recognized her immediately, and it reinforced the suspicion that I formed back then, namely, that most of what we 'know' about opiate addction is pure bunk, created out of whole cloth by writers and others who sought understanding, sympathy and validation for what is (at its core) nothing more than a Very Bad Habit.

llater,

llamas
 

It was Hogarth who drew Gin Lane (and its counterpart, Beer Street) - Holbein was a painter in Henry VIII's time.

I am in two minds about the addictiveness of Opiates - I did a lot of work in 18th century opiate use for an academic paper a while back, and it does seem that there was (then, at least) some sort of cyclical pattern to using laudanum &c. It was taken, as they thought, to relieve stomach problems; when they came off it, stomach problems recurred because of the effects of opiates, and so went back on them again to 'relieve' what were in fact withdrawal symptoms.
IANAD, so this may not be addiction in the truest sense of the word, of course.
The place in Britain with the highest use of opiates was the Fens, where they used to put laudanum in the beer. Can't for the life of me think why that reminds me of the Rat experiment...
 

In his argument, he mentions Amsterdam and uses it as a reason not to legalise drugs. This is where his argument falls, as The Netherlands has a crime rate below both England and the US. The murder rate in Amsterdam, whilst higher than London, is lower than almost any major US city.

Whether heroin is addictive or not is debatable; there are medical reasons why it may be addictive as it mimics endorphin action on the brain and body. I personally believe that everyone can become addicted to something, given the right conditions. Prisons for example are unpleasant places, and anything which improves a life of boredom and confinement is likely to get a good hearing. [I would say the same about Liverpool, but might get Scouse abuse as a result :-) ]
 

Here comes some anecdotal evidence of the character of drug addicts (nothing that police officers won't know, I suspect):

I hired a cleaner to clean a flat that I was moving out of a year or so ago, and the cleaner turned out to be a drug centre counselor (with many years of experience), who just did a bit of cleaning at the weekends.

Anyway, I spent an hour or so talking with her about the addicts that she counselled. Prior to having that conversation with her, my attitude towards 'addicts' was one of sympathy. But after? Utter lack of sympathy!

This counsellor said that over the years she had met almost *no* people who were genuinely regretful of their behaviour, and who truly wanted to come off whatever drug they were on.

She said that she met people from all walks of life, but that there was an obvious preponderance of what could be called the 'thieving underclass'.

She also said that almost all of the people that attended the centre she worked in did it *only* to fulfil a requirement of a sentence (they were all just going through the motions). And that very, very few actually wanted to come off their drug of choice.
 

"She was a high-flyer at one of the Big Three here in Detroit, and she was a Stone Junkie."

Llamas - can you tell us what happened to the woman in question? She sounds like an otherwise fairly useful member of the community (unlike the majority of addicts), so just wondering...
 

I locked up a career bag snatcher in February. She eventually was charged and given a 4 months suspended sentance (annoying).

Fortunately last week another bag snatch came in and when I got there I was delighted to see it was the same Heroin riddled customer. She got charged and is belatedly serving 4 months (no doubt only 2 though).

My point is, we give these workshy, theiving 'addicts' all these opportunities to 'reform'. They don't want to, it's their life choice, if they applied themselves to real work as well as they do to theiving they'd make brilliant employess. But they choose to take drugs and steal.

She is now going inside, but there was at least 1 victim we know about who had to suffer for this to happen, and no doubt she has stolen 10 other bags before we caught up with her.

I say it every time, you can't polish a turd.
 

I am an addict to the world's most addictive substance - Nicotine.

I reckon it's probably now more expensive than Heroin but I've never had the merest inclination to mug someone or steal from people's houses to feed my addiction. It's not in me to do that.

It must be in them, though.
 

Years ago I had quite a bit to do with a guy who had worked in a medical heroin factory on and off for years. First in the UK and then in Oz when the company shifted that part of it's operations. As the containment wasn't perfect they had continual low level exposure.

He said that it was only noticable for the first week of holidays when he was a bit twitchy and the first week back when all he wanted to do was sleep. To compensate they got an extra weeks holiday per year but had to take it in one go.

Seems to point to the health problems being lifestyle related (and presumably what it is cut with) than the drug itself.
 

I think a lot (all?) of what the general public are told and believe about drugs is totally false.
Many, many people consume (and yes, sell) drugs without causing any problems for themselves or others - as long as they don't get caught !

I'm not suggesting that taking drugs is problem free or a good thing, just that the public is generally mis-informed.

More people die from peanut allergies each year than die as a result of Extasy consumption.

I think part of the problem may be that modern life is actually very boring. Many of the challenges we evolved to face: hunting bison, being hunted by tigers, fighting against other tribes or for status within a tribe have been removed by the advance of civilisation in the blink of an eye (in evolutionary terms).

It's not suprising then, that some people have a hard time fitting into this civilisation: they aren't civilised. Football hooligans, burglars, drug adicts, armed robbers all (presumably) need more "stimulation" than the rest of us who are prepared to toe the line and work "9-5" to earn our living.

I'm not making excuses for peoples behaviour but some of these types of people would have been useful members of the tribe in less civilised times(ie when it comes to bringing down a bison or driving away the savages from the next valley).

The problem remains of how we can all live together in a truly civilised way. (Putting someone in prison for consuming a natural herb is not civilised).

I think many people take drugs as a way of either providing some missing excitement and stimulation or as a way of reducing the need for excitement and stimulation.
 

Regarding this:

'"She was a high-flyer at one of the Big Three here in Detroit, and she was a Stone Junkie."

Llamas - can you tell us what happened to the woman in question? She sounds like an otherwise fairly useful member of the community (unlike the majority of addicts), so just wondering...'

- you know - I had no idea. This was 15 years ago.

So . . .

A quick Google shows that she was still working for the same Big 3 employer in 2006, and suggests that she was located in Europe for a period in the early '00's. I'm 99 44/100% certain that this is the same person.

I will make some calls and report back.

llater,

llamas
 

Well, that was easy.

She has no record as a result of her arrest. This means (most likely) that the charges were dropped or (less likely) that she applied to have her record expunged. Most likely, for simple possession + parapernalia, the prosecutor decided to drop the charges. The man on the other end of the phone reminded me that the Big 3 are very, very kind to their employees with drug problems, so perhaps she agreed to go into employer-provided rehab and the prosecutor agreed to drop the charges.

She is now married, with at least one child, and lives in one of the tonier suburbs of Detroit. Her driving record is not-so-good but she has no other issues with the law.

Her job would be protected by the ADA - drug addiction is a 'disability' and her employer could not fire her for admitting her problem and going into treatment for it. It looks to me as though she has not flown as high as her potential seemed to indicate, 15 years ago, but maybe that's the 'mommy track' and not the smack.

Whether or not she's clean now - who knows?

llater,

llamas
 

For over ten years I was prescribed one of the infamous benzodiazepines (Ativan) as treatment for serious anxiety and panic attacks. It always seemed to me that I had freely agreed to the treatment, and that I chose to continue with it. I myself ordered the repeat prescriptions. Although I was warned repeatedly that I might become dangerously addicted, I never exceeded the specified dose, and, before coming off them, I had voluntarily reduced my intake by gradual withdrawal. When the time came to stop the medication I was again warned that my symptoms would probably be as severe as those associated with withdrawal from heroin. I ceased treatment with no obvious adverse side-effects whatsoever.
 

Come on Davie Boy, lets here some Police Officer Caught Shagging stories...

What's his excuse gonna be?

Was he taking down her 'particulars'?
 

Mostly right, but the good doctor seems to be confusing prohibition with prevention. Is there much evidence that making opiates illegal does much more than drive up the price?
 

"The man on the other end of the phone reminded me that the Big 3 are very, very kind to their employees with drug problems, so perhaps she agreed to go into employer-provided rehab and the prosecutor agreed to drop the charges"

Thanks, Llamas - that was interesting.

Actually, your statement about the 'Big 3' was interesting. I noticed a poster in the hq of a global 'Big 3' bank recently, and it said something along the lines of 'just tell us, we help to sort it all out, and nobody will ever find out...'

But, I am guessing that most/all? banks would keep a record of any such problem - even if buried deeply in a closely held file. And that would almost certainly have a chilling effect on a person's prospects of promotion. I mean, which of the banks would want a ex-drug addict getting too high in the organization and really screwing things up one day. The banks have enough problems with non drug addicts (Leeson, et al) doing that as it is :-)
 

I am currently in one of those phases where I loath smack heads more than normal.
I have had a week of dealing with several of the waste of skin gutter rats who slink about the town looking for an opportunity to make enough for a bag of heroin.
Bad teeth bad skin bad feet dirty clothes they always have loads of receipts from the local cash converter from selling what they have stolen.
I have come across the odd one who managed to keep themselves half tidy and generally out of court but nearly all have little or no morals.
It's time we got tough on them and started to lock them up.
 

Did anybody see that excuse of a "Doctor" on channel 4 recently? This guy apparently was a Government adviser to non-other that the iron lady herself. Makes me wonder just how degenerate our "society" is?
 

Er - this is Detroit. Around here, the Big 3 means one thing and one thing only - Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

Under the ADA (the Americans with Disabilities Act) her smack problem counts as a 'disability' and her employer is prohibited from discriminating against her because of it - so long as she took the treatment, successfully - and must, in fact, accommodate her 'disability' in every practical way possible. This is why virtually any US hiring process will now include a drug test - so that employers are not saddled with addicted employees and the healthcare and other costs associated with them. Once the 'disbiality' card has been turned, it becomes awfully hard to separate an employee.

As to 'get tough on them & lock them up' - well, that's certainly going to do them a lot of good. They're usually sick (I don't mean their addiction, I mean the consequences of it) and they're already a heavy burden on society - how does locking them up help?

Methadone is a joke - let's get them hooked on something that sounds innocuous, why don't we? - and enabling programs like needle exchange and outreach to addicts merely extend the societal burden.

If we're going to spend the $25-40k pa that incarceration costs, then let's decriminalize smack (it would sell for a dollar a gram if it were legal) and let's pay every registered addict $10 or $20k pa - which should be enough to keep them stoned somewhere off the streets. And we'd still come out ahead. Opium dens weren't that bad an idea. There's always going to be a certain part of the population that is enticed to use heroin - locking them away solves nothing.

llater,

llamas
 

re comment by sim at 0116pm. Here's a thought for you. How about all the drug addicts/burglars who need more stimulation than the rest of us firstly try and get a job. With the money made from said job, try throwing themselves out of planes(preferably without the parachute), take up scuba diving, visit exotic places, buy high powered motorbikes, try water ski-ing, go ski-ing in winter etc etc etc. No, getting a job is far too much like hard work to enjoy the above stimulation, so lets get a quick,cheap and easy stimulus instead, like shooting smack up your arm. You're view of society is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with modern life, and why we are in such a sorry state. And as for taking down a bison, have you seen the vast majority of weakling smackheads. Couldn't bring down a yorkshire terrier, never mind a bison. One sad individual.
 

>they always have loads of receipts from the local cash converter from selling what they have stolen. [...] It's time we got tough on them and started to lock them up.

What, the pawn shop owners? I completely agree. ASBO them to prohibit them from selling to known wrong 'uns, then get them fined to buggery and back when you find the receipts.
 

"Er - this is Detroit. Around here, the Big 3 means one thing and one thing only - Ford, Chrysler and General Motors."



Doh! You should be glad I'm not a detective - how did I miss the word 'Detroit'?! (How could I assume banks? Guess where I live).

But, Big 'whichever industry' seem to be similarly understanding...
 

rogerborg, I agree with you totally.
There is always someone willing to take in the stolen gear.
 

"And as for taking down a bison, have you seen the vast majority of weakling smackheads."

Yes, that comment did make me laugh out loud. The idea that a heroin addict is some form of superhuman made redundant in a modern world - what a laugh!


"With the money made from said job, try throwing themselves out of planes(preferably without the parachute)..."

Yes, and speaking as someone who can regularly be found at a dropzone (come on down, you know you want to!), I would be very happy to take them for an attempt on the world 400-way formation skydive ( http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vDyfkEGWOh8 )- minus parachutes for them, as you mention!
 

Probably the most sincere and sensible set of posts on this blog for a long time. I find that I am in agreement with just about everything posted. I have long held the view that legalisation is the way forward.

Jurgen
 

Even without the heroin, they would still be thieving lowlife types.
Heroin is a big excuse in my view.
Ever addict I deal with is the same.

wasters.
 

Addicts are bleepin' annoying and get in the way of doing what we really want do.

Aye. Fair comment.
 

Funny that the main addiction most of us have, alcohol, has a great deal of high functioning 'addicts'. I know a fair few who can stick it away for England, and of rank too.....:-)
I have seen doctors in custody suites sending out for a quarter bottle of whiskey to ease the shakes. Never see them give diamorphine out though...
 

Is Heroin an excuse ????

What would happen if alcohol was banned? If like the prohibition era in the US it could only be acquire at a cost in a few places!
What would you do???

Well I would still try to have a sneaky drink. I might try and brew the stuff myself. But I would make sure the mortgage was paid - the poo-monster had enough baby food and I wouldnt mug any old ladies for extra money.
I might do a few extra hours at work or forego the foreign holiday but I wouldn't rob.

Yes - course it is an excuse. If there was no heroin in the world would bag-heads go get a job - or smoke spliffs all day??

Not a tricky question!

From Ricky G
 

"I have long held the view that legalisation is the way forward."

Hmmm...I wonder what would prevent the dealers (of whatever form - not necessarily criminals) from 'marketing' their newly legalized products to school kids? Of course, some dealers already do this...

I am not disagreeing with you - I just honestly wonder what would happen. And, frankly, who knows?

And, of course, as someone mentioned, just about the most destructive of substances (alcohol) is quite legal.
 

Among your many insightful and amusing posts, I'm afraid I think this one falls a bit short.

Really, it's a bit simplistic.

No-one (ok, maybe there are some) is saying that addiction excuses crime. But it is a factor that contributes to it, sadly. Of course an addict is not merely a "victim" but a participant in his or her crime.

Like many illnesses, addiction can be partly treated, but it's by no means easy because it involves changing deeply-held patterns of thinking and behaviour.

Easy though it is to say, no-one actually changes by being told they are a "pathetic human being". This type of advice is always counter-productive if we are genuinely looking to see people change, and thus stop committing crime - an aim I'm sure we all share.

And no, I'm certainly not advocating legalization of drugs.
 

My tutor con had the suggestion (which I still think is brilliant) - all drugs seized get poisoned with strychnine or similar and resold covertly on the streets as genuine. All current druggies then die, all who are tempted to take drugs don't (or they do, then die as well), the government can take 2p off income tax and crime drops because 70% of your criminals are dead. Oh and all the self-deluding academics and execs would of course just pack in their drug-taking as easily as say, giving up cigarettes. If heroin isn't addictive, why do most of my customers turn into raging sweating shivering loons after being remanded on Saturday pm for court on Monday? By the way, as a custody sgt my philosophy goes thus - if you take drugs and don't work, then you don't get bail because you will steal to fund your habit. Full stop. Never had a brief even start to argue against that one.
 

Has anyone considered WHY some people end up using mind altering addictive substances?

Fags and alcohol are "addictive" and have been the socially accepted "norm" for hundreds of years. My life experience has shown me, that people who use alcohol on a regular basis, do so to unwind, relax, and often block out mental/emotional pain.

Fags/nicotine is THE WORST "drug" on the market and obviously legal, bringing in HUGE sums for the taxman, as does alcohol.

Heroin, cocaine, speed, ecstacy are no worse than alcohol. There's a big difference between "use" of a substance and "abuse" of it. People seem to want to change and spice up their lives sometimes and use substances which alter mood or perception. They CAN do that by other means, like yoga and meditation, which takes self dicipline and determination.

I have known people who have used drugs and alcohol because they want to block out the pain and distress of bad experiences, which they are unable to let go of, or move on from. Treating addicts like "scumbags" really IS counter-productive, as that just reinforces their negative state of mind. Sometimes life really CAN grind people down to the depths of despair and their ONLY relief can seem to be a drug/alcohol induced oblivion. Not everyone is strong in the face of adversity. Some stumble and use a crutch of drink or drugs. Legalisation probably would make it easier to control.

There has been a great deal of hype and propoganda about drugs in the press since the 1960's, particularly about cannabis. A distinction should be made between "skunk" and the original form of cannabis. The old fashioned cannabis [giving away my age here!] is NOT "addictive". I have used it in moderation for over 30 years, on and off. I have never had any sort of withdrawal symptoms, nor any "addiction" cravings for it. That most certainly could and should be legalised. It's a beneficial herb when used in moderation, like having a couple of glasses of wine!

Super-Skunk however is a different matter because it has been genetically modified. It is very strong, wipes people out and has an "addictive" quality to it. If the government really are serious about dealing with the "problem of skunk", because of the affect upon the under 21's - The ONLY way to tackle this IS TO LEGALISE cannabis, the original, as nature intended variety. Half the kids won't bother with it if it's legal, and the bad strains of skunk could be eliminated from the market.
And it is complete bo**ocks, that using cannabis is the "slippery slope" to heroin addiction. There are MANY people worldwide who have smoked cannabis and have not gone on to other substances. Nor have they turned to crime as a way of life. There are probably quite a few cops who have, or still do, enjoy an occaisional spliff. Why should we be classed as "criminals"???

Cheeky Monkey
 

I would never legalise heroin or crack for that matter.

All cops will tell you, junkies do not take the same amount of 'gear' every day. The amount they take fluctuates.

If they have £100 that day, they spend it on £100 of 'gear'. If they only have a tenner, it'll be a tenner bag that day.

Can you imagine having to fund all that on the NHS ??

Where I live, it took me two weeks to get an appoitment to see my doctor. Why ? Cos the town is full of junkies and they are never away from the surgery. That is a fact.

Go to a chemist anyday, see how many junkies are lining up for their first fix of the day, Methadone. That is an expensive drug costing us millions. You won't see any junkie paying for their script, cos it is provided by us and our taxes. North of the border, they have calculated that the success rate for weaning people off heroin via Meth is about 2%.

Yes, crime does cost a lot of money anyway, but no way do I wish to pay for the likes of these types to get out of their trees all day. I'll take the chance that I'll not be a victim of crime rather than paying out via higher taxes anyway.

Legalising it will only cause further problems, some of which we cannot foresee.

One crack user I lifted, I asked, 'if you won the lottery jackpot tomorrow, would you stop smoking white?

He said he would just be able to afford more. He took it cos he liked it.
 

Atlantic Writer wrote:
"Easy though it is to say, no-one actually changes by being told they are a "pathetic human being". This type of advice is always counter-productive if we are genuinely looking to see people change, and thus stop committing crime - an aim I'm sure we all share."

Hmmm. In what way is the current system of indulging these people changing them, then? I'm afraid we need to write off a substantial proportion of our young people and start again. If we can do something to stop them infecting the forthcoming generations, that would be a start.
 

I’m a MOP so thankfully have never had anything to do with druggies. However I have just had to pop down to the local chemist at Queens Park to get some passport photo’s taken Whilst waiting for the pics to be printed I was suddenly aware of four unkempt/greasy/scummy looking blokes enter the shop and walk straight up to the counter. They were greeted by name by the pharmacist who made each one sigh something and then gave each one a little bottle that they immediately drank and handed empty back to the pharmacist. You guys are the experts, methadone?
 

A few years ago I heard of an idea which seemed to make sense at the time;
Given the huge sums of honest peoples' money involved in preventing the influx of illegal substances, the level of crime committed to support the users and the general evilness of the dealers, why not give heroin to users (IN A VERY CAREFULLY CONTROLLED WAY) for free. This would make it uneconomical for the dealers and remove the need for crimes to support the "habit".
Efforts of C&E could also be redirected.
Looked at through a pair of very rosy glasses, it might just work.

Gentlemen, start your comments.
 

"Come on Davie Boy, lets here some Police Officer Caught Shagging stories..."

Yes, nothing like a good police shaggin' story, as you say. And the jury apparently thought that the story was good enough, and that no conviction was necessary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6947678.stm

Perhaps they gave him a round of applause because as someone else posted here, he maintained his obviously high professional standards by keeping in contact while shaggin':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2260515.ece


Probably right that he was charged, however. The police obviously have to be seen to be utterly even-handed, even when it comes to their own wayward colleagues.

I personally thought it was a scandal that that *alleged* incident (as posted here a while back) involving a senior male officer shagging some senior female officer never got to court.

If I remember rightly, some kind of altercation with one of the senior officer's spouse (?) ensued, a firearms team got called, and the whole thing got hushed up.

This is obviously a scandal - the public good is not served by hushing up what was obviously an extremely titillating piece of gossip. Let it come out in open court, I say - let's have all the sordid details :)

BTW, does anyone know whether (if the account was true) the shaggers in question got any kind of punishment for their ridiculous behaviour?
 

"if we are genuinely looking to see people change, and thus stop committing crime - an aim I'm sure we all share."

actually, I just want people to stop committing crime. if they want to change too thats a bonus. im open to any of these suggestions as to how this is accomplished. being in jail seems a simple and obvious solution.

just a member of the public, not a member of the force. good work the rest of you.
 

Atlanticwriter, no this post does not fall short, it is just challenging the current wishy-washy liberal concept that(as you put it) addiction is some sort of illness. And there are only "some" saying addiction excuses crime? The "some" includes the British government, with their drug testing program for core crime. Burgled a house son? OK, we'll test you for illicit drugs, and if positive we'll send you on a re-hab program rather than prison. What, it didn't work, he's burgled a granny again? Oh well, it's cos he's got an illness,he's addicted to heroin, (and on , and on, and on). The only police officers who you will hear pretending to believe this twaddle are those seeking promotion. Look, an illness in my reckoning is something gained involuntarily like Parkinson's disease,meningitis,influenza etc. It certainly isn't something acquired voluntarily by many already indoctrinated in criminal ways. Apologies for my lack of compassion. but it's hard after you've spent time with victims of crime who've had their houses trashed,or humiliatingly mugged on the streets.
 

Here's a solution. It's a bit out there but I'm sure it could be done if 'they' wanted to.

Geneticaly engineer a parasite or a disease that attacks opiate poppies and let it loose in the poppy fields of afganistan and such places.

Oh by the way it was my idea so any genetic engineers, if you get it to work you owe me.
 

As a member of the law abiding general public I would be interested in knowing what you police offices think of this video clip from LiveLeak and whether or not this is a normal problem that police offices are faced with?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adb_1187111193
 

Start giving out free drugs and you'll have half the scum of Europe descending on us.
To take the stuff in the first place you have to be a bit of an arse, so having the character to give it up is very unlikely.
When an organisation gives out free syringes they should put their name on it, so when mums find them in children's play areas they know where to send them back.
We have all seen countless addicts coming out of prison looking all clean and healthy, only to find them shambling down the street with their snuffling rat like gait a week later.
Its called a drug problem for a reason, the main problem is the low life that take it in the first place, talking with some tosser with a degree twice a week won't stop them. The only thing that tends to work is the immediate fear of draconian punnishment. It is quite amazing how many of them can clean their act up whilst on Crown Court bail, looking at a couple of years when they are made aware of the alternatives of a drug treatment order. Bingo,drug free in a week.
It's a lyfestyle choice they make, untill we make it a much more unnatractive one, these nasty little people will remain amongst us like the bloodsucking parasites they are happy to be.
 

All those who want to give the 'air thieves' free heroin - how much do you think it will cost us - the taxpayer ??

Will it help the wasters get off heroin and become decent members of society ??

Will you be willing for your income tax to go up a notch or two to finance it ??

If the junkie gets his gear first thing in the morning, goes home, takes it and ODs and snuffs it - does the chemist who gave it to him get sued ( it is culpable homcide you're looking at if you were a street dealer) or does the junkie's relatives sue the doctor for prescribing to him ?

Being on heroin brings many other unhealthy side effects - junkies receive millions of pounds worth of free prescription drugs as it is, diazepam, nitrazepam, dihydrocodeine etc etc - you wanna pay for that and the other drugs they'll need ?

How often do you think the chemists will get tanned over night by junkies who could only get a tenners worth of gear via prescription that day and needed about £100 worth, so breaking into the chemist to steal it was required ??

The gangs who control the drug trade, everyone from poppy growers to smugglers etc - you want to help finance them ??

Do you really think crime will drop overnight if we legalise it ??

Legalise it - no with my tax money you don't.
 

Oh, me, me, me, I got it!

What do you suppose that the present state of affairs is doing for your tax burden? Or, more specifically, for your cost of living?

All of the costs of the current mess (policing, crime, inacraceration, healthcare) are coming out of your pocket now, either as direct taxation, as surcharges on everything you buy, or as societal surcharges as the rates of property crime go through the roof. Police forces are pi**ing away vast proportions of their resources chasing drug users and sellers. Prisons are packed to the rafters with drug users and sellers - as though locking them up is going to change their ways. The NHS is groaning under the cost and manpower burdens of treating drug users for all their concomitant ills. And all of the stuff that the drug users steal to fund their habits is paid for by you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices. All these costs are dumped on you for one reason only - becasue the stuff is illegal.

Yes, the sorts of people who use heroin tend to be losers, they tend to be weak-willed, amoral scum, net negatives to society. But those people are always with us. Draconian enforcment of drug laws has not diminished their numbers, in fact, it appears quite the opposite. How draconian are you willing to get to discourage or eliminate drug use? Mao ZeDong found a way, and it was very successful. Is that what you're prepared to do?

I don't know what the answer is. In my heart of hearts, I hate the idea of making such self-destructive behaviour legal. But the alternative - the 'get tough on them and lock 'em up' "War on Drugs" is a dismal, abject failure that is eating up our liberties, our idea of a free society and our treasure. As every attempt at Prohibition has ever been. I wish I knew the answer.

llater,

llamas
 

I have a question for those who favour legalisation.

What do you think dealers would do if the drugs they sell were legalised?

They might start legitimate jobs, I suppose. But isn't it more likely that they'd go into robbery, burglary, protection rackets or suchlike?
 

Humberside Police were really getting stuck into apprehending the druggies on the programme tonight - even got the Skycops and the dog handlers involved, in addition to their high-performance Subarus.

They seem committed to maintaining a hard line against drug and related crime (theft and dangerous driving offences), in the old-fashioned way, (whether or not the substances are actually addictive or merely habit-forming).

Would their stance be fairly typical of forces across the country? Is it sustainable*?

*The Humberside Force seems to think it is.
 

Legalising class A drugs would lead to absolute chaos in the UK as every druggy in europe descends on England.

However draconian punishments at this end aren't the only solution.

(don't get me wrong I'm an advocate of locking them up for maximum sentences and the re-introduction of corporal punishments to prisons for drugs/violent offences whilst insde)

However you need to cut supply and demand. Which means:

1) providing poppy growers in afghanistan with a crop which makes em more money.

2) having an impact on transhipment/smuggling.

Now I don't know what the government were thinking when they came up with SOCA but so far their response to H has been pitiful and the loss of experienced HMCE investigators hasn't helped much....
 

I'm well educated, have a good job (if I say so myself), and I've tried Heroin several times. (I'm not particularly proud of that, but try everything, you only live once etc. etc.)...

Copperfield:

1) Group Therapy. - Same with alcohol, same with cigarettes, same with gambling are these not real addictions? They ALL have a biochemical basis (Google 'Gambling addiction' & 'Cortisol') Heroin works on a more powerful pathway than the others I mention.

2) Methadone - Think about it, if you can only afford X grams of Heroin per day, why not top up your high with some free 'smack' from the chemist. Methadone is not a substitute in the mind of an addict.

3) Unemployment - Hmmm, sit around in a blissfull, lucid dreamstate all day long, or get up and work 9 till 5 in menial employment. Not making excuses, but I know which I would chose.

4) Designer clothes - Are you sure they aren't fakes, or 'fell of the back of a lorry'.

5) Drugs & Crime - Certain people believe criminal behaviour is acceptable, whether taking drugs or commiting theft. A lack of decent upbringing/discipline is likely to lead to both, rather than one leading to thte other.

Please don't interpret me as some bleeding heart liberal, just trying to shed some light on the situation.

PS. reading other users comments, people seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that Heroin is addictive to everyone... Stop buying into government 'Just say No' adverts and do some research: Only ~30% of 'regular' Heroin users are 'addicted'.
 

A trial 'drug court' has been operating in Queensland Australia for serial offenders whose crimes are drug related. Police officers are not allowed to wear uniform as it 'intimidates participants aka grubs', and when urine samples are clean and essays from offenders are read out, the court , including magistrates, clap and cheer. It has an abysmal success rate, but the program is being expanded. Truth be known, there is not enough room in the jails for them.
 

llamas said: "All of the costs of the current mess (policing, crime, inacraceration, healthcare) are coming out of your pocket now, either as direct taxation, as surcharges on everything you buy, or as societal surcharges as the rates of property crime go through the roof."

personally, as a libertarian, in an ideal world i would legalise everything. adults should be free to make their own choices, even if they're bad ones. however, part of the deal would be the removal of any state safety net so if you do f*** up, tough titty, unless you have friends and family who are prepared to help you. and we're not going to go for that.

so, in our imperfect world, i'm in favour of prohibition.

yes, llamas, it costs us a lot of money. too much, in fact.

i've long suggested we do a deal with - say - the nigerian govt. they build 50,000 new prison places and we'll fill them with our scum and pay them to keep them locked up.

local land prices, local construction rates, local guards earning local pay, local food bought at local prices, local 'healthcare'... it wouldn't cost £40k per annum, that's for sure. and i kind of think it might act as a bit more of a deterrent than hmp ford.

each gaol could have a british governor, just to keep the liberals happy.

it's a win-win. cheaper for us and a cash injection into a third world economy.

we've got enough f***ing nigerians in our prisons, after all.
 

Well, I never said I had all the answers.

I'm also confused by the posters who assert the legalizing heroin and the other class A drugs "would lead to chaos". What do you call what you have now?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we should simply say 'on such-and-such a day, heroin is legal. Any questions?' As with any dangerous product or activity, there may well need to be some oversight. But what causes the present chaos is that the only way to get these drugs is by illegal activity. Tha chaos is not caused by the act of taking the drug - your average smackhead, when high, causes little mayhem - he simply wants a quiet place to dream.

Until the 1960s, addicts in the UK could be maintained on prescription. There was no real drug crime, there were no significant 'dealers', no-one was getting shot over an ounce of horse, because any MD could prescribe the stuff for you - on the NHS, yet.

I don't say that I like that idea - but it eliminates the crime.

As to what the delaers will do when their trade is cut off - yes, maybe they will go into some other criminal enterprise - probably they will. But at least the police will be freed up from the task of dealing with thousands upon thousands of low-level users and their pitiful non-criminal problems. And dealing drugs is about the easiest form of crime there is - we're dealing with ounces or pounds of an innocuous-looking powder. Hell, I could do it. Virtually all other forms of crime demand some actual physical work. And they are always easier to both prevent and detect, becasue all other forms of crime involve a victim.

Regarding the idea of eliminating the supply - let us know how you get on with that. If it's not Afghanistan, then it's some other place where the state is corrupt enough to produce this stuff and take the vast sums of Western money that it brings. If you burn doen the poppy fileds, in 60 days or less, someone else will pop up to fill the demand. If it wasn't for the plentiful and cheap supply of plant-based opium from the Middle and Far east, someone would come up with a process to synthesise diacetyl morphine and we'd be in even-worse shape.

The whole problem - the Whole Problem - is that we have chosen to make taking these drugs illegal. Until we address that core problem, all these silly-ass ideas do nothing more than try and change the symptoms or move the problems about. You cannot change human nature by laws, as every attempt at Prohibition through the ages has proved. Some people will always want to take these drugs, and if you make it a crime to do so, then they'll commit whatever crimes they have to to get the drug.

Like I said - opium dens weren't all bad. If people want to take heroin and dream their lives away, then let's find a way that they can do that without burdening the rest of us with their problem any more than is absolutely necessary. Most of the posters here of the 'hang 'em and flog 'em and lock 'em up and throw away the key' persuasion are expressing a moral judgement - taking heroin is Bad, and people who do Bad Things should be Punished! I'm sure that the frisson of Righteousness that this opinion brings the holder is just delicious. But the imposition of your moral judgement on these unfortunate idiots is costing the rest of us far too much - in liberty, in quality of life, and in treasure. How much of our free society and our money are you prepared to expend so that you can continue to have the warm glow of Righteousness?

One poster mentions a Crackdown, some place or other. Humberside, I see. Yes, they really got Stuck Into those smackheads. They really Showed Them The Error Of Their Ways. They Maintained The Hard Line. Just makes me feel all Righteous just thinking about it (I used to be a copper, you know).

And they achieved - Nothing. Thousands or millions of £ were spent, resources deployed, and the liberties of millions of citizens who do not take heroin were reduced - and not a single smackhead stopped taking heroin. Not a single dealer was displaced - the one who was sent to jail for a few weeks or a few months was immediately replaced.

If that is success in the War on Drugs, then we need to look at it harder, becasue I don't know how long we cna stand that much Success.

llater,

llamas
 

Oh - and just in case my references to the social and societal cost of rigourous enforcement of drug prohibitions is not clear - this is what you get when you go down that road:

http://reason.com/news/show/121967.html

You - John Q. Citizen - can have your front door kicked down, be abused, beaten, shot or killed - and all on the say-so of one of those exact drug users that the law is supposed to be trying to eliminate.

These are not 'tragic mistakes' or 'isolated incidents' - these outcomes are endemic to the policy direction, part-and-parcel of what you will get when you decide to go down this road.

llater,

llamas
 

llamas said:

"One poster mentions a Crackdown, some place or other. Humberside, I see.... etc."

According to the programme, they did put a gang of 5 away for a total of 22 years.

All officers interviewed seem determined to hang in there.

I like the idea of transporting convicted offenders to Nigeria or someplace.

I wonder if Devil's Island could be rented out from the French for that purpose?
 

Wow Llamas I did not realise what a liberal you rarely where. Writing sitting in a bar in st Johns I am beginning to understand some of you Canadian attitude.
To put my two cents in criminalisation never woks, society has to decide what is to be considered illegal and punish accordingly, but prohibition of recreational substance or behaviour has never worked. History (US) shows that restriction only brings criminalisation ant the associated problems. (The Mafia had no hold in the US until the 1930s)

Joseph K
 

Theodore Dalrymple has an article written in today's Mail on Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how it's treated in the press on Monday. Odds on The Guardian and the people in charge will use the word "rubbish". I think it's about time someone exposed this "addiction is a disease" myth.
 

If we legalise one drug where do we stop? Heroin? Crystal Meth? Given all the hassle we have with alcohol on a daily basis I don't fancy living in a society that condones any other behaviour altering substances.
That's not to say though that our present system of attempted rehab teamed with 'crackdowns' is working either.
Education isn't the answer either given that most the addicts I meet wouldn't know one end of a pen from the other.
Maybe we should just pray for a few more bad batches.
 

Id like to see any of you take a shot of heroin and not want to do it again. Dont talk about shit you have no idea about. No number of statistics or case studies will be able to describe the addictive potential of heroin. It would be a mistake to say that heroin addicts are always "pathetic loser thieves" or however you put it. It would be the same as considering the millions upon millions of nicotine addicts as thieves simply because of a physical and psychological addiction. Please do not mistake the powerful grasp that heroin has on its users.

-A UC Berkeley Biomedical Engineering Undergraduate and regular charlie shooter user
 

I AM THE WIFE OF A HEROIN ADDICT AND HAVE BEEN FOR 12 YEARS. MY HEROIN ADDICTED HUSBAND HAS ALWAYS WORKED FULLTIME AND HAS BEEN NOTED AS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST HARD WORKING EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. YES,LIFE IS DIFFICULT SOMETIMES WHERE MONEY IS CONCERNED,BUT TAKING HEROIN DOES NOT MAKE HIM A BAD PERSON OR A LOSER.THE ONLY HELP IN THE CITY WHERE WE LIVE IS A METHADONE PROGRAMME.DRINKING METHADONE ON SIGHT IN A CHEMIST IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR MY HUSBAND AS HE WORKS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.WHY SHOULD HE GIVE UP HIS JOB,LOSE HIS HOUSE ETC AS THESE DOCTORS ON THE METH PROGRAMMES SAY, JUST SO HE CAN GET HELP? STOP BEING SO SKEPTICAL,FOR NOT ALL HEROIN ADDICTS ARE THE LOSERS YOU MAKE THEM OUT TO BE.........
 

Heroin breaks the caps locks key
 

Take away drugs and we'll have just as many pathetic losers (the people you've said would be just as pathetic if they weren’t addicted to drugs).

What's the reason they are so pathetic? What shall we do with them? Are they all going to end up thieving and being arrested anyway? If so, would it make any difference if they were on drugs or not? If you don't think it would, then we should legalise drugs and put all the effort into helping people not be pathetic. If you think there's a way that we can do that. Otherwise, perhaps you think they should be tested for patheticness and locked up or deported for that crime.