Graham Norton and drug use - Page 4

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

i think i can say with certainty that prohibition doesnt work because of the stunningly widespread use of drugs in this country and the criminal acts that supply and addiction cause. what i cant say with certainty is that removal of prohibition will work. i'd like to give it a whirl though. the taxation windfall could certainly address the massive shortfall in drug treatment programmes for starters.

Are you saying that you want the government to solicit people to commit crimes because that is what will happen if you start charging people for drugs in fact I would go a step further and say even if you gave them out for free it would not reduce crime, it was tried in Scotland registered addicts got free heroin, all they did was commit crime to pay for different drugs.

hatedbythemail · 09-10-2006, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Are you saying that you want the government to solicit people to commit crimes because that is what will happen if you start charging people for drugs in fact I would go a step further and say even if you gave them out for free it would not reduce crime, it was tried in Scotland registered addicts got free heroin, all they did was commit crime to pay for different drugs.

well decriminalisation is not the whole answer. it would need to be part of a package that would also encompass provision of accessible treament, something which we dont have now. you might, if youre lucky, get on a drug treatment programme if you get into the criminal justice system but even then thats doubtful. and our prison population, now at its highest, has a very high number of drug users (and people with mental health issues); those people should be receiving proper treatment to get them off drugs and reoffending. prison patently does not do that. and the fact that our prisons are full of drug users highlights how current policy does not work.

it needs some bold thinking of the kind our politicians will never have.

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 14:14

The lack of drug treatment places is a scandal, I am not sure that they do any good anyway, the problem is that the person returns to the same problems, has the same friends and associates, it's far to easy for them to slip back into bad habits.

My old boss had a solution for the problem, put them up against a wall and shoot them, she is adamant that it's the only way forward.

Shaun · 09-10-2006, 14:16

And there ends reasoned debate on the subject.

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

And there ends reasoned debate on the subject.

Considering we worked in a hostel offering treatment to drug addicts, I would suggest not, her views were more based on the fact that the job is quite soul destroying and sometimes people are just beyond help, you think you are making progress only for the client to let themselves down, our success rate was good compared to government organisations but it was still awful, we didn't make much difference, the fact that she carry's on and has done for more than twenty years says more for me than a back handed comment born out of frustration.

hatedbythemail · 09-10-2006, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The lack of drug treatment places is a scandal, I am not sure that they do any good anyway, the problem is that the person returns to the same problems, has the same friends and associates, it's far to easy for them to slip back into bad habits.

well in no small part thats because of the kind of drug culture which prohibition generates

Quote:

My old boss had a solution for the problem, put them up against a wall and shoot them, she is adamant that it's the only way forward.

did she have the same view of those addicted to alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs.....

Nugget · 09-10-2006, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

My old boss had a solution for the problem, put them up against a wall and shoot them, she is adamant that it's the only way forward.

When you think about it, wouldn't life be much better for everyone if everyone like her was lined up and shot - the world would be a much happier place without these morons

---------- Post added at 16:25 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Actually, I take it back - they shouldn't be shot (waste of ammo and all that). What should happen is that everyone who they think should be shot should be allowed to give them one ding round the back of the head for being an @rse

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

When you think about it, wouldn't life be much better for everyone if everyone like her was lined up and shot - the world would be a much happier place without these morons

Actions speak louder than words, I guess it's easy to pass comment on something she said a few times at the end of a wasted 18 hour day, did it ever impact on her work and I suppose that the people who she got of drugs and booze would no doubt agree that she should be shot to make the world a better place.

Nugget · 09-10-2006, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Actions speak louder than words, I guess it's easy to pass comment on something she said a few times at the end of a wasted 18 hour day, did it ever impact on her work and I suppose that the people who she got of drugs and booze would no doubt agree that she should be shot to make the world a better place.

I agree, some people are beyond help. Doesn't mean that help shouldn't be made available for them. Frankly, the fact that someone with this opinion is allowed to work in a place where people come for help beggars belief...

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

well in no small part thats because of the kind of drug culture which prohibition generates

did she have the same view of those addicted to alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs.....

No because the people on prescription drugs that we worked with were generally mentally ill, don't you think a better question would have been 'should they have been with us at all'.

hatedbythemail · 09-10-2006, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No because the people on prescription drugs that we worked with were generally mentally ill, don't you think a better question would have been 'should they have been with us at all'.

you said you worked in a hostel offering treatment to drug addicts. so im not sure how i could have posed a different question based on the facts available. very many people having problems with non-prescription drugs have mental health issues too. another reason why i dont find the distinction too helpful

TheDaddy · 09-10-2006, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

I agree, some people are beyond help. Doesn't mean that help shouldn't be made available for them. Frankly, the fact that someone with this opinion is allowed to work in a place where people come for help beggars belief...

I admit I was shocked when I first heard her say it, however you cannot knock her dedication for the first ten years she worked voluntarily after her full time job and today at the end of work she regularly visits the local squats with food and blankets etc.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

you said you worked in a hostel offering treatment to drug addicts. so im not sure how i could have posed a different question based on the facts available. very many people having problems with non-prescription drugs have mental health issues too. another reason why i dont find the distinction too helpful

Exactly we were only supposed to deal with drug addicts so why would she have an opinion on other addictions but in the end we got used by everyone and not always to their benefit for instance I remember one particularly unsavoury character that used to wait outside for the people with mental health issues and any youngsters to try and tempt them with drugs, the point I was making was that we weren't trained to help them but what do you do when they knock on the door, turn them away.

hatedbythemail · 09-10-2006, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Exactly we were only supposed to deal with drug addicts so why would she have an opinion on other addictions but in the end we got used by everyone and not always to their benefit for instance I remember one particularly unsavoury character that used to wait outside for the people with mental health issues and any youngsters to try and tempt them with drugs, the point I was making was that we weren't trained to help them but what do you do when they knock on the door, turn them away.

i understand now, i think but you mean people addicted to illegal drugs. lots of people are addicted to drugs, not all of them legal. but its the illegal ones which tend to become embroiled in crime etc.

bottom line is we do not give mental health and drug addiction enough resources

Shaun · 09-10-2006, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

My old boss had a solution for the problem, put them up against a wall and shoot them, she is adamant that it's the only way forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Considering we worked in a hostel offering treatment to drug addicts, I would suggest not, her views were more based on the fact that the job is quite soul destroying and sometimes people are just beyond help

I apologize I didn't realize the first comment contained the information in the second comment but in encrypted form -silly me for not reading between the lines!

Again were getting lead off topic by unrelated arguments.

Back to Graham Norton being the druggy pied piper of suburbia* please guys.

Interesting, in that report (although 3 years old) the greatest increase in drug "abuse" is of the non-illegal amyl-nitrate! Stuff sold in bars and clubs legally along with the Smirnoff Ice and WKDs. Poptastically nasty stuff (if you ask me).

*

Quote:

It shows that drug abuse is highest in affluent urban areas with one in five households, or 22%, said to contain somebody using drugs. This compares with 14% of households on council estates and other low income housing, 12% among new home owners, 10% in the affluent suburbs and rural areas and 9% in affluent family areas.