13 Nov 06
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm
Which is worse, prisons "forcing" addicts to give up drugs, or prisons giving drugs to addicts?
They are going to come in for criticism either way, but this way they ended up paying the ungrateful scum.
Well, at least they'll have enough money so they don't have to burgle innocent people for a few months.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by VargTough call.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm
Which is worse, prisons "forcing" addicts to give up drugs, or prisons giving drugs to addicts?
They are going to come in for criticism either way, but this way they ended up paying the ungrateful scum.
Well, at least they'll have enough money so they don't have to burgle innocent people for a few months.
I presume what swayed it in their favour is that they were already receiving alternative treatment for their addiction.
It's very bad for one's health to work up a healthy addiction and go cold turkey in one go, so I guess it could be conceived as being harmful.
Eventually though, they probably wouldn't have been in prison in the first place, if drug use was legal and they didn't have to steal to afford their habits.
13 Nov 06
There was a bloke on the BBC news this morning, from whatever charity is involved with this.
He was saying that this is not about people demanding drugs while in prison, but demanding that there existing drug treatment (ie to get off drugs) is continued while inside.
If we treated drug addiction like the illness that it is, then many of the asociated social problems just go away.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by RedmikeTreatment for most medical conditions is continued in prison (e.g. diabetes, heart failure, etc.) It would be inhumane not to do so.
There was a bloke on the BBC news this morning, from whatever charity is involved with this.
He was saying that this is not about people demanding drugs while in prison, but demanding that there existing drug treatment (ie to get off drugs) is continued while inside.
If we treated drug addiction like the illness that it is, then many of the asociated social problems just go away.
Chemical addiction is an arguably self-inflicted medical condition, but still deserves to be treated according to usual clinical practice once you are in prison.
I don't know what the medical communities view of "cold turkey' is. Is it more dangerous/less effective than the various drug substitution/weaning programs? Of course in prison there is no opportunity to back-slide, so "cold-turkey" is probably 100% effective.
But is it as safe, that's the question.
13 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeNot all their rights are restricted and even if they were there's always the fact that they're not non-existing.
Being put in prison is a restriction of their human rights. How on earth did they have a case for their rights being infringed upon in this context?
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by Redmikeah, i was listening to the same bloke on radio 2. i think he was saying that some drug addicts are suing the government for compensation because they were not given methodone as heroin substitute whilst in prison. apparently heroin is easy to get hold of in prison! It's a poor show when you can get a fix in prison but you can't get the help to come off it
There was a bloke on the BBC news this morning, from whatever charity is involved with this.
He was saying that this is not about people demanding drugs while in prison, but demanding that there existing drug treatment (ie to get off drugs) is continued while inside.
If we treated drug addiction like the illness that it is, then many of the asociated social problems just go away.
14 Nov 06
Originally posted by VargThe most direct effects of prohibitions are on the supply and demand for the prohibited good. Prohibitions tend to raise some costs of supplying the prohibited good because suppliers face legal punishments for manufacturing, distributing, and selling the good. More or less equivalently, black market suppliers incur the costs of bribing law-enforcement authorities and elected officials so as to avoid these legal punishments. On the other hand, prohibitions can decrease the costs of supplying a prohibited good, because black market suppliers can more easily evade government regulations and taxes, including environmental regulation, employment discrimination laws, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, occupational health and safety regulation, tariffs and other import restrictions, income taxes, social security taxes, and excise taxes. Black market suppliers of a good are also unlikely to spend money advertising their product-since this would tend to reveal their existence to the law enforcement authorities-and the reduced expenditure on advertising further reduces costs (Motta 1997).
How will legalising drugs make them more affordable?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_199807/ai_n8797768/pg_2
I can't find the numbers for the price of alcohol before, during and after Prohibition, which is what I was looking for unfortunately.
The above excerpt does not give an opinion about whether or not legalisation of drugs now would increase or decrease the price. It seems to suggest either could occur.
14 Nov 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungInteresting.
[b]The most direct effects of prohibitions are on the supply and demand for the prohibited good. Prohibitions tend to raise some costs of supplying the prohibited good because suppliers face legal punishments for manufacturing, distributing, and selling the good. More or less equivalently, black market suppliers incur the costs of bribing law-enforcem ...[text shortened]... tion of drugs now would increase or decrease the price. It seems to suggest either could occur.
However, even if the need to steal to feed the habit is reduced, it won't alter the fact that to a junky, other people are an irrelevance to be used and abused as they wish.
14 Nov 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI hear this line a lot but I fail to undersatnd it.
If we treated drug addiction like the illness that it is, then many of the asociated social problems just go away.
Can you explain it.
I expected you say, we should take the causes of people to take drugs rather than to subscribe to the easy way out theory keep and the inmates sedated.