If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   High-ranking British politician speaks out about the drug war, calls for mass incarcera.. **RECORD SCRATCH** Hold on, he's ACTUALLY calling them out for failed drug policy? "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class"   (theguardian.com) divider line 22
    More: Hero, Nick Clegg, drug policy, overdose, pity, open society  
•       •       •

4045 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 3:32 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-09 04:05:47 PM
3 votes:

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.



I agree with you for the most part, but the political classes deal with public policy. If the unintended effects of public policy mess up personal responsibility, the political class should be obligated to notice and fix that.

The part of your statement I disagree with is "There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs." Actually, there is nothing the government can do to prevent EVERYONE from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs. The government can implement laws that regulate strength, purity, and dosage of drugs they actually review. People tend not to OD when they know these things. Some will, but fewer than when people buy from dealers who failed high school chemistry. I am less likely to OD with a pill from a company named Merck than a guy named Mark.

To take an obvious example, beer, wine, and spirits are regulated by the government. People still die in drunk driving accidents. However, relatively few die because they accidentally ingest methanol instead of ethanol. Also, people know that beer isn't going to range between 1 percent and 80 percent ethanol, depending on how much rubbing alcohol it is cut with. When the effective dosage ranges from shot glass to six pack, it's a lot more difficult to prevent an overdose.
2014-02-09 04:08:36 PM
2 votes:

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.


I dunno, by either by treating addiction for drugs with known toxicities at as a disease and allowing doctors to treat that disease by providing controlled quantities of untainted drugs to the seriously addicted, or by allowing free use of drugs which have LD50s measure in kilograms.

Or we could just treat addicts as subhuman scum that we're willing to throw on the scrapheap of life. Then we bill their negligent kin for their corpse's disposal.

Here's an example - Diamorphine (i.e. heroin) from NICE in the UK:  Chronic pain, 5-10 mg regularly every four hours by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. The dose may be increased according to individual needs. Cost: £23.00 for 100 5mg doses. Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied and sleep 8 hours a day for a total cost to the nation of £1.76, or $2.89 in Jeebus Money per day. Or we could have them out robbing and breaking into folks houses and set expensive, expensive police officers on them.

Stop being a dick. Please.
2014-02-09 03:49:24 PM
2 votes:
So if what we are doing doesnt work after decades of trying we should try something different.... crazy talk.
2014-02-09 03:43:06 PM
2 votes:
A smart politician. He won't last very long.
2014-02-10 01:38:13 AM
1 votes:

Norfolking Chance: gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

Sold out? He is the most successful Lib Dem leader in living memory. He has turned a party from also-rans to people at the heart of government pushing the Lib Dem agenda. The biggest problem is that they are a minority part of the government so shouldn't dominate the policies.


The day after the coalition agreement was signed this was true.

So ... Which Lib Dem promises has he caused to be implemented or influenced? No mansion tax, kept Trident, no local income tax, no banking levy, no uniform minimum wage, no infrastructure bank, no local income tax, no influence on a Education policy (free schools, National Curriculum, tuition fees), parliamentary reform, Post Office in public ownership, no third runway at Heathrow.

All these things abandoned for the Single Transferable Vote which ... did not go well.

So, none of the Lib Dem policies that weren't also Conservative policies. No influence beyond standing next to Cameron at the Olympics.

A power sharing agreement with no power sharing. That's not a win.
Becoming the punch line to every joke about weasel politicians with no principles. That's not a win.
Polling below UKIP. That's not a win.

The forthcoming electoral massacre? That's karma.
2014-02-09 07:23:44 PM
1 votes:

fickenchucker: This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.


Countries that have made the sensible move and decriminalized "hard" drugs and seen their usage plummet disagree. Keep swallowing that big hot, steamy load of propaganda, though.
2014-02-09 06:40:35 PM
1 votes:

Spiralmonkey: Boojum2k: Rueened: Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin

Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.

When it's being packaged and taxes for sale heroin will cost a little more than that.

This is the NHS, no sale, no taxes.


Um, the original concept presented was "legalize, inspect, and tax." Do you recommended the NHS also supply free drinks and cigarettes to everybody?
2014-02-09 06:23:44 PM
1 votes:
This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.
2014-02-09 06:12:03 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.


You know how we can tell you are talking out of your hat?  Because the vast majority of OD's are caused by the uneven quality of street drugs.  You get used to one level of "purity" and the next batch is 5x what you have been using and your 'normal' dose is now deadly.  Add in some other cut, like that actor last week, and the results are not favorable.

Users using known purity drugs only OD on purpose since they can take a known, exact dose rather than some guess.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself one of the Big Lies, if it makes you feel better about condeming someone to a grisly death.
2014-02-09 06:01:33 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?

No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.


Okay, I have.  You said there was no personal responsibility involved in voting for somebody you don't like.  You're right; that's totally different than what I thought you said.
2014-02-09 04:59:25 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?


Or, you could learn lessons from more enlightened countries, and how they deal with heroin addicts who are unable to kick their habit.

Provide them a safe, private and supervised way to administer their measured dose with a doctor's supervision.

Link
Link

Of course, it would be best for people to not be on heroin, but what purpose does it serve to incarcerate (at cost to the tax payer) those that can't do without it? Will making criminals of them serve anyone's interests?
2014-02-09 04:42:44 PM
1 votes:
Early on, heroin was an ingredient in patent medicines. The world didn't quit turning. Don't want to get addicted? Don't take it.
2014-02-09 04:41:14 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: if you die, you die


Right, so in your mind, drug addiction is not actually a problem. So why think about it at all? What's the difference between what you're suggesting and just not caring? Besides your feelings, which since you're a stranger to all of us, don't matter? Oh, right, if you really didn't care I wouldn't have to look at your stupid words. So why post?

The real answer, I suspect, is because you're a spiteful person that enjoys the suffering of others, and you use your opinion that they deserve it as an excuse so you don't seem like a shiathead. Well, we're on to you, shiathead. I personally don't want to have to keep paying for addicts to die and commit crimes. I live in a major city, not some prairie cabin, and the actions of others effect me personally because they are in close physical proximity.

I see a problem and I try to solve it. Crackheads and junkies are a problem. If you don't think so, then buzz off. Your opinion is as common as dirt, you're wasting all of our time with your bullshiat. Save it for Facebook.
2014-02-09 04:33:39 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?
It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.


I agree, broadly. But here in the UK moonshine isn't really a thing, and bootleg ciggies tend merely to be illegally imported mass produced cigs from elsewhere. A customs issue, but not an increased health risk.

So let's not make perfect the enemy of good. There are still alcoholics dying from drink, but the answer I'd not prohibition.
2014-02-09 04:24:36 PM
1 votes:
Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?
2014-02-09 04:24:09 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.




Irrational risks, sure. But often, those risks are unknowable. If I buy moonshine from a guy on the street it might be 60 proof, or 100 proof, or 3 parts methylated spirits. So drinking it is a risk.

I don't drink moonshine, and the reason is I can get my intoxicants from a controlled source, at a consistent quality and concentration.

That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.
2014-02-09 04:21:21 PM
1 votes:

mccallcl: WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion?


Generally, it refers to removing government influence over a behavior, and letting the responsible do as they will, and the irresponsible to suffer their own personal outcomes. Wouldn't even require a big media presentation, just a change in political and law enforcement policy. "If you want to do heroin, fine. We won't lock you up or stop you. But if you wreck your body, your liable for the costs, and if you die, you die."

What's your plan?
2014-02-09 04:15:27 PM
1 votes:

Andulamb: What happened to personal responsibility?


WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion? This is not dinner at grandma's, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, keep your mouth shut and let the grownups talk. Even telling everyone to "stop doing that" still requires a media buy and a creative campaign. Throwing up your hands and making us all watch you do it is dumb and you should feel dumb.
2014-02-09 04:00:04 PM
1 votes:

Great Justice: Boojum2k: Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.

But only if they don't have any kids.  Darwin is very picky about that point.


Very true, the ones who already had kids just get a sad trombone noise.
2014-02-09 03:57:16 PM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.


But only if they don't have any kids.  Darwin is very picky about that point.
2014-02-09 03:52:03 PM
1 votes:
Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.
2014-02-09 03:46:53 PM
1 votes:
"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report