Unbelievable - Lucas advocates the use of recreational drugs

[bhaexpress]

They are probably all the people who won't have to deal with the effects nor live in the neighbourhoods where increased drug use could lead to issues.

Ivory tower types.

I was think 'Heads up Arse' types personally.

 

[Easy 10]

Legalise the drugs I say.

BUT on the proviso ALL medical expenses incurred due to drug use are paid by the user, no reimburesements. Also create a legal chanel by which people can sue the arse off anyone on drugs who causes another perosn or their property damage.

The average smackhead is hardly going to put aside some money to cover the associated medical costs.

 

[MattBackHome]

The average smackhead is hardly going to put aside some money to cover the associated medical costs.

Ah, but the thoughtful smackhead would...

 

[bhaexpress]

Legalise the drugs I say.

BUT on the proviso ALL medical expenses incurred due to drug use are paid by the user, no reimburesements. Also create a legal chanel by which people can sue the arse off anyone on drugs who causes another perosn or their property damage.

Yes but then you'd have to do the same for fat people with heart conditions, all smokers, alkies, motorcyclists, mountaineers, rugby players, people who cross the road. Where do you draw the line ?

 

[The Spanish]

i am all for a good drugs row but i bet the success of a certain asian city state in massively reducing its number of heroin addicts since the 70s would not be endorsed by ms lucas.

there is no way we can decriminalise or radically alter our drugs laws unilaterally. . as for heavily taxing them i would like to know how making heroin for example prohibitively expensive through taxation and regulation yet technically legal will make much difference to criminality. basing your views on a bill hicks ish no one had a fight stoned worldview does not take into account the massive potential damage done by having every druggy dickhead in europe beating a path to your door.

well done lucas for having a debate but there is an element of playing to the gallery on this one and the gallery on here is giving her a standing ovation, when some polite golf applause is more appropriate.

 

[thejackal]

Oh HB&B what a transparently narrow-minded little twit you are. Society is all encompassing you state.

As long as society is how you wish it to be........dare I suggest. If one continues to do the same things in life one gets the same results. The war on drugs has been lost. Utterly. So you advocate taking an even harder line than the one that has not worked.

Therin lies the flaw in your position my intellectually-challenged little Nazi. The fact that people on here will know someone that has been badly or even tragically affected by the effects of drugs and the type of people one has to generally mix in to get access to them is exactly why a new approach is required.

I agree (damn it!) with Simster - this woman can say this because she will never be in a position of authority.....it needs someone, somebody to take a new approach if we are ever to get a balance in this problem.

Now go back outside into your garden and shoot the terrorists, junkies, lesbians and poor people that are undoubtedly clammering at the gates of your mansion.

Twit.

This.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The average smackhead is hardly going to put aside some money to cover the associated medical costs.

But that's the thing. Pro legalisation groups, speakers etc will tell you those types of drug takers are in the smaller %.

Recreational drugs won't include heroin and the like. They are the eccy takers, the pot smokers, the occasional coke users.

It's those people who do have assets and jobs etc that might reconsider taking them if they see people having assets stripped from them while under the influence of said drugs.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Yes but then you'd have to do the same for fat people with heart conditions, all smokers, alkies, motorcyclists, mountaineers, rugby players, people who cross the road. Where do you draw the line ?

There are already financial and social restrictions on quite a few of those types of people.

Look at insurance.

If fat people with heart conditions have to declare their issues(which means often they won't be insured) then so should drug users.

To put the average casual user off using simply hit them where it hurts the most, the hip pocket.

 

[The Spanish]

But that's the thing. Pro legalisation groups, speakers etc will tell you those types of drug takers are in the smaller %.

Recreational drugs won't include heroin and the like. They are the eccy takers, the pot smokers, the occasional coke users.

It's those people who do have assets and jobs etc that might reconsider taking them if they see people having assets stripped from them while under the influence of said drugs.

so what you are saying is that people who are more likely to be nett contributors tax wise who might ocassionally come into contact with the criminal justice or health system however unlikely that may be should get charged for services to pay for the small percentage of drug takers who are a drain on the public purse, although obviously the revenue from your plan is extremely unlikely to pay for the cost of the serious drains on resources. yet another belter.

 

[Easy 10]

But that's the thing. Pro legalisation groups, speakers etc will tell you those types of drug takers are in the smaller %.

Recreational drugs won't include heroin and the like. They are the eccy takers, the pot smokers, the occasional coke users.

It's those people who do have assets and jobs etc that might reconsider taking them if they see people having assets stripped from them while under the influence of said drugs.

If they know they're going to have to put some serious money or assets up in order to get help for their addiction or habit, recreational or not, I'd have thought this would make it significantly LESS likely that they're ever going to come forward and seek help to get off it (if they even WANT to get off it). And that in turn could make it more likely that the recreational loser will gradually slide towards addiction.

It sounds good in theory, making them pay for their own treatment and taking the burden away from the taxpayer. But in practice, it wouldn't help solve the problem, it'd probably worsen it.

 

[Simster]

so what you are saying is that people who are more likely to be nett contributors tax wise who might ocassionally come into contact with the criminal justice or health system however unlikely that may be should get charged for services to pay for the small percentage of drug takers who are a drain on the public purse, although obviously the revenue from your plan is extremely unlikely to pay for the cost of the serious drains on resources. yet another belter.

You're not looking at it objectively. We ought to be able to take care of the vulnerable as a society. You look at serial heroin users and I'd wager the number of them abused as kids or with a very harsh start in life will be much
higher than the population at large.

The net contributors are already paying for the druggies who are a drain on the public purse, and there will always be people who drain the public purse. We need to be thinking of ways to reduce this drain in the long run, and getting the drug problem under control is surely the best way.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

so what you are saying is that people who are more likely to be nett contributors tax wise who might ocassionally come into contact with the criminal justice or health system however unlikely that may be should get charged for services to pay for the small percentage of drug takers who are a drain on the public purse, although obviously the revenue from your plan is extremely unlikely to pay for the cost of the serious drains on resources. yet another belter.

No, what I'm saying is that if someone is under the influence of drugs they should be made libel in a civil court of law to have their assets stripped if they harm an innocent person.

As it is people under the influence get slaps on the wrist and if there's a victim they suffer the biggest consequences.

If you're going to legalise drugs you need to have in place a deterent to people to show what happens if you don't use responsibly.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If they know they're going to have to put some serious money or assets up in order to get help for their addiction or habit, recreational or not, I'd have thought this would make it significantly LESS likely that they're ever going to come forward and seek help to get off it (if they even WANT to get off it). And that in turn could make it more likely that the recreational loser will gradually slide towards addiction.

It sounds good in theory, making them pay for their own treatment and taking the burden away from the taxpayer. But in practice, it wouldn't help solve the problem, it'd probably worsen it.

Treatment for recreational drugs would never mirror that of hard drugs like heroin.

I think people tend to hear the word drugs and picture a heroin addict in a gutter.

Recreational drug takers are a different beast altogether, as is a lot of the drugs they use.


Thus they would have the means to pay for certain treatments.

 

[vegster]

I would not really advocate total legalisation of drugs, however, the curent regime of locking people up is patently not working. Interesting that HB+B chooses not to criticise the rozzer who agrees with Caroline Lucas ?.... is it just the political angle from Thatchers spermatozoa that matters to him ?

 

[The Spanish]

You're not looking at it objectively. We ought to be able to take care of the vulnerable as a society. You look at serial heroin users and I'd wager the number of them abused as kids or with a very harsh start in life will be much
higher than the population at large.

The net contributors are already paying for the druggies who are a drain on the public purse, and there will always be people who drain the public purse. We need to be thinking of ways to reduce this drain in the long run, and getting the drug problem under control is surely the best way.

we could always just lie and say that they are in fact fuelling the economy by creating jobs in the criminal and health sectors, taking up positions as heroin addicts that other people simply refuse to become, and increase the richness of our society. works with other social issues.


JOKE

 

[bhaexpress]

I don't think there's any suggestion that a herion user has come from a deprived background or been abused as a child. You only have to look at the number of rock stars who have used and have died of herion overdoeses. People take heroin because they get such a great high from it, nobody forces them to take it. I also don't see why it's assumed that somebody who smokes dope will eventually wind up on Smack, the people who do would have got there whatever they did before.

 

[bhaexpress]

There are already financial and social restrictions on quite a few of those types of people.

Look at insurance.

If fat people with heart conditions have to declare their issues(which means often they won't be insured) then so should drug users.

To put the average casual user off using simply hit them where it hurts the most, the hip pocket.

You're very naive, can you see anybody with any kind of bad habit taking out insurance ?

 

[Easy 10]

Treatment for recreational drugs would never mirror that of hard drugs like heroin.

I think people tend to hear the word drugs and picture a heroin addict in a gutter.

Recreational drug takers are a different beast altogether, as is a lot of the drugs they use.


Thus they would have the means to pay for certain treatments.

They may well have the means to pay for treatment, but casual / recreational drug users won't consider that they have a problem, ergo they are not going to bother seeking out or paying for treatment.

 

[DTES]

I also don't see why it's assumed that somebody who smokes dope will eventually wind up on Smack, the people who do would have got there whatever they did before.

It's ridiculous false logic that is repeated over and over again: "Every crack/heroin user took cannabis before they moved onto the harder drugs".

It's just as true to say "Every crack/heroin user drank coffee before they moved onto the harder drugs", or "Every crack/heroin user ate cheese before they moved onto the harder drugs". Correlation is NOT causation - but of course this won't stop the conservative right from spouting the rubbish...

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You're very naive, can you see anybody with any kind of bad habit taking out insurance ?

I think you're incredibly naive as to the social back gorunds of those who make up recreational drug users.

Recreational drug users come from incredibly vast and varied mix of backgrounds.

Insurance is but one example of areas where people could be deterred by financial means, be that car, life, income protection insurance etc.

You'll never stop people from using, but you can make using a very risky and potentially costly thing for them do if they aren't repsonsible in their use.