Heroin must be legalised, says former judge

Skyline_GTR

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
4,326
Location
UK
A FORMER High Court judge has called for heroin to be legalised, branding current drugs policy in Scotland a "massive failure".

In an interview in The Scotsman today, Lord McCluskey says the link between drugs and crime is even closer than people are led to believe. "If people are addicted to heroin, give them heroin," he declares.

Lord McCluskey is one of the most senior legal figures in Scotland to advocate the legalisation of heroin and the latest high-profile name to demand a radical change in drugs policy.

Last year, 356 drug-related deaths were recorded in Scotland - 39 more than in 2003. Heroin was involved in two-thirds of the deaths, while methadone, a subscribed heroin substitute, was involved in 80.

Lord McCluskey said: "That is a massive failure of the current way of doing things. Yet we prescribe more of the same. If you want a simple measure of the failure of the present drugs policy, count the number of deaths, year by year. It has gone from zero in the 1970s to one a day.

"If people are addicted to heroin, give them heroin. I'm not suggesting you sell it at newsagents, but if you were to offer it to addicts in a medically controlled setting, there would be no criminal market.

"We've created a huge market for criminals to operate in. I think the drug element in all criminal behaviour is massively greater than we are led to believe. In other countries, drug addiction is treated as a health problem. Here it is treated as a legal problem."

Last week, Tory leadership contender David Cameron broke from party policy by saying the UN should consider legalising drugs, adding that hardcore addicts should be given state-prescribed heroin. "Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown," he said. "Drugs policy has been failing for decades."

But last night, some anti-drugs campaigners said legalising heroin would only draw more people into the spiral of narcotics abuse.

Alistair Ramsay, director of Scotland Against Drugs, said there was "a clear academic argument" for legalising heroin on the basis that it ensures people receive purer, less harmful substances.

But he added: "If you take someone with a drug problem out of prison, they will often go over the top and take much higher doses. That suggests that people who use drugs will use as much as they can as often as they can get it. If you make heroin readily available, the amount people will use will go up."

Drugs policy in Scotland is reserved to Westminster and so far the government has resisted calls to legalise heroin.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The government has no intention of legalising the recreational use of any currently controlled drug. Those who advocate legalisation take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation. Individuals are not the only ones affected by drug misuse; their families and communities are damaged as well."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Heroin must be legalised, says former judge

The Scotsman
13 September 2005

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1930162005
 
Skyline_GTR said:
Those who advocate legalisation take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation. Individuals are not the only ones affected by drug misuse; their families and communities are damaged as well.

If it legal there wont be any misuse. If itgovernment regulated users wont be doing shady shit to get high. Users wont be getting diseases. Families and communities will not be damaged because that Illegal stigma will be gone.
 
"if it were legal there wont be any misuse"

WRONG

i dont know how legalizing heroin would work..id have to believe the amount of users would increase BUT if a cheap/readily avail source was there, the amount of crime/disease would go down...kind of a give or take situation..
 
Tongue said:
"if it were legal there wont be any misuse"

WRONG

i dont know how legalizing heroin would work..id have to believe the amount of users would increase BUT if a cheap/readily avail source was there, the amount of crime/disease would go down...kind of a give or take situation..

even if use goes up, so what? you can live a normal life while addicted to heroin--if it's illegal, and anyway it's your fucking business. also use doesnt seem to be going up where drugs are decriminalised (in the long run)
 
The anti-campaigner raises an exceptionally pertinent point: if you provide users of addictive drugs (basically any addictive drug, owing to the action of the limbic system, see: advanced drug discussion "nucleus accumbens and the limbic system in addiction" or similar article [written by me]) then they WILL use more, more often. Doctors have done trials giving users as much heroin as they want, and found no real ceiling to the dosages that they ended up prescribing. I personally favour legalisation and regulation, but one other problem is this: if you only give hardcore addicts govt regulated heroin in a medical setting, where do new users get their heroin from? There will always be a group of people who are *actively seeking* drugs with the effects that opioids have. A black market will still arise for these people, I believe.
 
The reason legalization is considered so terrible and wrong is that it is undisputed that usage and number of users will go up.

It must be made clear that this is not a bad thing; and moreso, it must be made clear that this is the much lesser of two evils, one of usage or one of crime, poverty, and health.
 
i dunno if full legalization is the route to go. heroin is a pretty dangerous drug and not something that i really think should be readily available to anyone and everyone. decriminilization and proper treatment are the safe way to go methinks.
 
THE WOOD said:
i dunno if full legalization is the route to go. heroin is a pretty dangerous drug and not something that i really think should be readily available to anyone and everyone. decriminilization and proper treatment are the safe way to go methinks.

Aye...I agree. I believe that when something can be obtained easily the use of it will go up. Also, even if there are laws regulating the use, there will still be black market for it.

Plus making it legal does not mean that the black market for it will be gone. Take for example Singapore where prostitution is legal but only women from Malaysia and Thailand are allowed to work in brothel legally. However, if you go down to Geylang (the red light district) you can see women from other countries like China, Philippines walking the street. And this is Singapore where the government has been able to control most things.
 
mitogen said:
The anti-campaigner raises an exceptionally pertinent point: if you provide users of addictive drugs (basically any addictive drug, owing to the action of the limbic system, see: advanced drug discussion "nucleus accumbens and the limbic system in addiction" or similar article [written by me]) then they WILL use more, more often. Doctors have done trials giving users as much heroin as they want, and found no real ceiling to the dosages that they ended up prescribing. I personally favour legalisation and regulation, but one other problem is this: if you only give hardcore addicts govt regulated heroin in a medical setting, where do new users get their heroin from? There will always be a group of people who are *actively seeking* drugs with the effects that opioids have. A black market will still arise for these people, I believe.


Yea but linking the Nuclues Accumbens directly to behavior really ignores the inhibitory or moderating effects of hundreds of other brain pathways that are more recent evolutionary neurological developments? No?

Also--that arguemnt works for any addictive behavior, or probably most motivated behavior.

So do you want to ban gambling? pot? alcohol? driving fast on your own property?
 
Last edited:
Tongue said:
i thought that in cases where people were given unlimited amounts of heroin that their tolerance peaked at around 2 grams?

i thought that it was actually 500 mg of heroin per day...but i may be wrong...but i know that tolerance does peak at some point as that was shown in that study (done in scotland i think (again...not sure))
 
mitogen said:
Doctors have done trials giving users as much heroin as they want, and found no real ceiling to the dosages that they ended up prescribing.

links please as all evidence I've seen says the opposite, controlled studies do indicate that about 1-2% of addicts will increase as far as they can (never mind thats natural selection) while the rest 98-99% will stabelise then decrease their dose, these stastics are borne out in pallative care of terminal patients as well as with substance users.



.Alistair Ramsay, director of Scotland Against Drugs, said there was "a clear academic argument" for legalising heroin on the basis that it ensures people receive purer, less harmful substances.

But he added: "If you take someone with a drug problem out of prison, they will often go over the top and take much higher doses. That suggests that people who use drugs will use as much as they can as often as they can get it. If you make heroin readily available, the amount people will use will go up."

this is a typical argumant and full of shit, there will be an increase in the number of people using it just as more people used alcohol after it was legalised......but deaths go down!!!!!!!!!!!

its really are we fit to control our own bodies and make informed choices, the argumant above comes from the same people who make suicide illegal8) and think the state knows best, fucked if I'd trust the state with my kids education let alone health.

anti-drugs campagners are simply afraid of people and they should simly join the army, then they will be told what to do, when to eat, sleep and shit and leave the reat of the world alone...
 
Wow, I am astounded by some of your comments here, especially on site like BL. I think everyone knows that by legalizing, you Reduce the very harm that making drugs illegal has been occuring on daily basis:

1. You give people option to buy safer, cleaner, cheaper drugs
2. You virtually eliminate all drug related crime
3. You allow more poeple to get help in case they OD
4. You stop throwing innocent people to jail

If only 10% of what is being spent on law enforcement of drugs was spent on education we would be in much better shape today.

More-over, just because something is legal it will not want to make non drug users go out and buy a Heroin kit, Cigarettes and Alcohol have been legal for a long time and although a lot more deadly than most rec drugs, I don't see hords of alcoholics killing people on drinking & smoking binges.

Reduce harm & crime and save lives = legalize


:|
 
Well i hope it is legalised, even just for the fact that my house was broken into and my DVD player and MP3 player stolen...they caught the guy three days later breaking into a house right across from mine and he said he did it to feed his habbit.
 
From the article
"If people are addicted to heroin, give them heroin. I'm not suggesting you sell it at newsagents, but if you were to offer it to addicts in a medically controlled setting, there would be no criminal market."
But what about cocaine, amphetamines, weed, mushrooms, LSD, research chemicals etc. etc.? Should they be legalised too? If not, a black market will still be present for these drugs.

And if heroin can't be bought by those who want to try it, addict or not, a black market, although smaller, will certainly still be present for these people.

mitogen said:
The anti-campaigner raises an exceptionally pertinent point: if you provide users of addictive drugs [...] then they WILL use more, more often
I fail to see the exceptional perticency of this point. IMO a point of great pertinency would be how much more usage would increase.

The reason for legalisation is, amongst others, the realisation that if a person wants to use heroin he/she will. The negative consequences of the criminalisation drugs are far too great to justify its use as a deterrant from using them.

Using the same argument concerning alcohol, prohibition as seen in the US 1920-33 should be reinstated. The effects of drug prohibiton and alcohol prohibiton are exactly the same, except drug prohibition is discriminatory to a smaller group of users and therefore imapacts society to a smaller extent.

n4k33n said:
Perhaps it will happen in europe and canada, but it will take decades to even be considered in the us
I'm afraid of what the US might do if Europe legalised drugs. This would render US draw laws utterly useless as it would be impossible to control the drugs going into the country.

THE WOOD said:
... heroin is a pretty dangerous drug ...
Compared to what? A great part of heroin's dangers is the danger of an OD which mainly comes from users not knowing the purity of their drug (because of the black market).

... decriminilization and proper treatment are the safe way to go methinks.
I disagree. Decriminalisation (I presume you mean of usage/posession) will still uphold the crimes associated with prohibiton as it is the criminals making money from drugs. The prices won't drop much so users will still have to steal in order to buy drugs.
Also, the law saying "it is ok to use drugs but not to sell them" is both ambiguous and unhealthy for the legal system as a whole. The concept of a user who buys a drug from a seller and only the seller gets arrested is absurd.

But I agree that offering proper treatment is a must with or without legalisation.

fengtau said:
THE WOOD said:
i dunno if full legalization is the route to go. heroin is a pretty dangerous drug and not something that i really think should be readily available to anyone and everyone. decriminilization and proper treatment are the safe way to go methinks.
Aye...I agree. I believe that when something can be obtained easily the use of it will go up.
I think everyone will agree on that. The real question is how much.

Plus making it legal does not mean that the black market for it will be gone.
Not completely no but that's not a very good point. In my country at the very least 99% of all legal commodities, like TV's for example, are bought legally. Compared to that 100% of all illegal drugs are bought illegally (not considering drugs that are medicine). Now that's a big difference.

Plus making it legal does not mean that the black market for it will be gone. Take for example Singapore where prostitution is legal but only women from Malaysia and Thailand are allowed to work in brothel legally. However, if you go down to Geylang (the red light district) you can see women from other countries like China, Philippines walking the street. And this is Singapore where the government has been able to control most things.
That example does not prove your claim. Where is the black market for the legal prostitutes (Malaysian and Thai)? I only see a black market for the illegal prostitutes (Chinese and Filipinos).
 
Yeah, the only reason grandma isn't shooting smack is that she's afraid of the law. Legalize it and everyone will want to be a smack addict 8)

--- G.
 
Government isn't supposed to be a moral guardian for the country as a whole, the purpose of government is to organize and supply services etc to the population in such a manner as makes for a better quality of life for the majority of its citizens. On that basis, of course they should be supplying NHS, pharm grade heroin to addicts. The gains to society (in terms of a better life for its citizens) are many

Because the addicts are getting heroin that has to pass a quality control, there is much less chance of having people overdose because the strength varies

There are a LOT less crimes by addicts, such as burglary, to support their habits as they don't have to pay black market prices

Less money is channeled to organized crime and terrorism, both of which get substantial funds from involvement with drugs. This in turn will reduce their capacity to commit other (non-drug) crimes (org crime) or commit atrocities of the sort common to terrorism.

Far less money 'vanishes' from the economy due to drugs money leaving the country in return for the illegal drugs entering. This reduced balance of payments deficit produces more stability, less inflation etc (which is in the intrest of every citizen)

The users get what they want (making it illegal makes no difference to their desire to take the drug), other citizens get less acquisitive crime (by users to feed habit) and less crime associated with org crime because they have less money to do such. The same applies to terrorists and their crimes. The politicians even get a windfall because less disappears from the country's economy - all of the above are indesputably good for most citizens.

There still has to be some regulation; supply to minors should carry a prison sentance (obviously no decriminalization in prisons) or at least a removal of that persons right to have access to the drug; only fuckwit users would risk losing their supply for a few extra quid by selling to minors, but they'd deserve it. Additionally, any sales from an unlicenced seller should also carry loss/temp suspension of access to the drug. Very few would risk losing all by selling to an arsehole who'd lost their priviledges by doing something like selling to minors because the black market in it would be so much smaller.

As somebody pointed out, most users would then live fairly normal lives, and for the few that end up totally fucked out of their skull all day, every day on huge doses - at least they wouldn't be comitting crimes (they wouldn't dare risk losing their right to access if the had a fucking huge 5g a day habit).

The only losers in the above scenario are organized crime syndicates, terrorists and those sociopathic fuckwits who will not make the effort to conform to the current acceptable rules of society, regarless or not of whether they use drugs.

That CANNOT be any worse a working model than the one we have at the moment (prohibition); in fact it's a sight better for 99% of the population
 
Last edited:
^very well put, I couldn't agree with you more


I would also like to add one thing though,

what goes in my body is my business, but if I overdose...back of the line at the hospital buddy...
 
They're always so god damn concerned about more people doing it, who gives a fuck it's freedom if more people would flock to it if it was legal good for them. Educate them and they know what they're in for, at least it would stop a lot of the deaths
 
heres a clue...

even if use did go up, unlike cigarettes, heroin really won't kill you from direct use. i mean sure you can OD, but your just aiming for that sweet spot. if used daily in addiction, theres no room for OD.

cigarettes, alcohol, and numerous other things has proven addiction is something you can live with. i mean hell, we give heroin addicts now methadone or bupe to quit heroin, which is really, depending on situation, trading addictions....

so use goes up, but the harm reduction is worth the risk.
 
Top