Proposed UK NZ-style legislation

[sardonicus87]

Taken at face value, you’re in favor of no laws banning drug use, like fentanyl, or any other restrictions regarding self destructive behaviors, assuming that they don’t affect others not involved.
Human behavior is rarely clean with margins. Most of it spills over onto others. Taking into account the messiness, who picks up the bodies?

Well, on face value I would be, if there wasn't so much crime involving others, like robbery/theft to support said drug habit, or the cost to everyone in general for having to pay for all the narcan and increased policing. But if the majority could just do it recreationally and not be a public nuisance, then I would. Of course, there's more to consider than just that, like the children raised in such an environment (abuse, neglect, etc).

It's more about finding that line of how much spill over is too much. Like with alcohol, most people can enjoy it responsibly and not be drunk drivers wrecking into things or killing people. If drunk driving were more common, or theft to support alcohol, bar fights, etc... then I'd be against it. But as to where that line should be for the messy spill over or how messy is too messy, I don't know.

Though it also includes greater personal responsibility. Ignorance is no excuse for getting involved in something and then wanting to be saved by everyone else from it (though those addicted after an injury and being prescribed medication is a different case than those who started with heroin or without any prescription after an injury, that started purely recreationally). If I choose to do something, I also choose to deal with the consequences of that choice by myself, because I took that risk aand I brought it on myself, not anyone else.

There's also considerations about implementation as well. But this same principle is also why I would support stricter driving license requirements here. American lags severely behind other comparable countries in road safety and for no good reason.

It's just a basic principle as a starting point.

 

[jaingorenard]

All interesting points. On the political side of things, NZ have scrapped their legislation. It's being widely suggested here that the UK will be unlikely to want to be seen as a test case for reducing liberties rather than an early adopter of a life-saving public health policy. I think this is probably correct, and the policy will be scrapped (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking!).

 

[jaingorenard]

Also, some of you may be interested to know that our tobacco tax is being increased by a further 10%.

 

[sardonicus87]

And don't get me wrong, I am far and away not a libertarian by any way one wants to define that. Furthermore, the last post might seem harsh and brutal, but that's not the case at all.

Going back to the opioid example, I don't think that someone who chooses to use them recreationally deserves to die in the streets or something. Ideally, there would be options both private and public. They could pay a private clinic to help them get clean and be done with it. Or the public could fund clinics, as it is in the public's best interest for it to protect itself, but I also think taking a "free" public option should require them to pay back the public for that service, like for example through volunteer work of some kind. Like if the public wants sidewalks, those require maintenance and so someone taking the public option might have to volunteer for sidewalk maintenance or something, which is more or less shifting the cost of sidewalk maintenance to the cost of getting the person clean.

I don't mean to imply people don't deserve help or options.

 

[Winnipeger]

What about the people who smoke cigarettes that live a shorter life than people who don't smoke? Wouldn't their truncated life span cost us all less money? Especially considering that whether you're dying of 'natural causes' at 80 (after living a subjectively healthy life) or lung cancer from cigarettes at 62 your end of life care still costs us all money. The 62 year old cigarette smoker would end up costing tax payers less money in the long run potentially.

This^^^

I did read an article recently that suggested unhealthy lifestyle choices like drinking and smoking result in lower overall health care costs for the reason you stated. If everyone lived to 95, the heath care system would collapse. That seems to be happening here in Canada.

It may be that nanny-style government regulation has no impact whatsoever and it's all just a waste of resources.

As for drug prohibition, I am in favour of blanket legalization. Stop the Fentanyl at it's source, which is mostly China. Prohibitions directed towards endusers create black markets, criminalize non-violent citizens, and divert the public's attention and resources from the core issues: poverty, education, and health care. People are going to do heroin and meth. When they legalized it in Portugal, usage dropped and the government is treating it as a public health issue, which is what it is.

Or we could all follow the U.S. example and fill our prisons to the breaking point, while failing to address the massive public housing crisis, among other issues.

 

[Gimlet]

All interesting points. On the political side of things, NZ have scrapped their legislation. It's being widely suggested here that the UK will be unlikely to want to be seen as a test case for reducing liberties rather than an early adopter of a life-saving public health policy. I think this is probably correct, and the policy will be scrapped (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking!).

They'll try and tax us out of existence instead. And if things are bad now they're likely to get worse after the next election. When Labour discover that banning non-doms and taxing middle income families out of private education isn't going to fund one ha'penny of their spending commitments they'll be panicking and taxing everything within reach. And smokers have always been the lowest hanging fruit.

I'd like to ban bad government, the micro-managing nanny-state and excessive taxation. They're all far more damaging to human health than pipe smoking.

 

[Tyke Piper]

...I'd like to ban bad government, the micro-managing nanny-state and excessive taxation. They're all far more damaging to human health than pipe smoking.

 

[fireground_piper]

This^^^

I did read an article recently that suggested unhealthy lifestyle choices like drinking and smoking result in lower overall health care costs for the reason you stated. If everyone lived to 95, the heath care system would collapse. That seems to be happening here in Canada.

It may be that nanny-style government regulation has no impact whatsoever and it's all just a waste of resources.

As for drug prohibition, I am in favour of blanket legalization. Stop the Fentanyl at it's source, which is mostly China. Prohibitions directed towards endusers create black markets, criminalize non-violent citizens, and divert the public's attention and resources from the core issues: poverty, education, and health care. People are going to do heroin and meth. When they legalized it in Portugal, usage dropped and the government is treating it as a public health issue, which is what it is.

Or we could all follow the U.S. example and fill our prisons to the breaking point, while failing to address the massive public housing crisis, among other issues.

A number of years ago my state made policy prohibiting arrest when police/emergency services were called for an OD. This means you can have all the drugs and paraphernalia you want strewn all over your living space and police give you a pamphlet telling you to seek help. It’s a freaking mess. No thank you. You can keep that mass legalization garbage because I’d rather an offender go to jail than receive another dose of narcan and pamphlet for the day while his kids struggle in the other room.

 

[Winnipeger]

A number of years ago my state made policy prohibiting arrest when police/emergency services were called for an OD. This means you can have all the drugs and paraphernalia you want strewn all over your living space and police give you a pamphlet telling you to seek help. It’s a freaking mess. No thank you. You can keep that mass legalization garbage because I’d rather an offender go to jail than receive another dose of narcan and pamphlet for the day while his kids struggle in the other room.

Yeah but the big question is what costs more to society and taxpayers in the long run.

In Manitoba where I live, first, it cost's over $100,000 to house a prisoner for one year. (We don't have any privately run prisons in Canada btw). $100,000 is a lot of money. If the province handed over a quarter of that amount to a community trustee, family member, guardian, whatever, you'd have better outcomes. That's just spitballing.

The correlation between poverty and drug addiction is well documented, especially poverty exposure in childhood. If you take a non-violent, potential breadwinner (even if they have a drug problem) out of the home and leave a single parent to fend for themselves, you're potentially impoverishing that family even more. Incarcerating a non-violent offender never seems like a good option in a rational society, but we don't have a rational society. We have a punitive society. What you get then, is more hardened criminals being released back into society from prison, where they probably developed a serious meth addiction if they didn't already have one, not to mention PTSD. What's the point of that?

Now if the drug user is abusing their spouse and the police get called, they should arrest the person for assault or whatever. The drug charges don't add anything. If meth heads are going around smashing windows, if they get caught, they should be charged. You don't need blanket drug prohibitions. The theory around prohibiting something is that you'll provide a disincentive, and people will be less likely to abuse it. That doesn't work and it's not what happens. Look around.

 

[fireground_piper]

Yeah but the big question is what costs more to society and taxpayers in the long run.

There is no cost too high to give that small window of opportunity for a spouse, partner, children, whoever to get out of the situation of being stuck with an addict. Even just a few days in jail and potential for legal intervention affords at least that opportunity which is worth more than anything.

You can quite literally OD, receive as many narcan sprays as it takes to bring you back, get medically assessed onsite, decline transport to the hospital, and then OD again once everyone leaves with complete immunity from the law.

It might sound good on paper to decriminalize things, but when you get the experience of dragging the OD body out of the house in front of their family and they can just walk back in shortly later to do it all over again with full legal immunity, society has failed. Been there, some that.

 

[Winnipeger]

There is no cost too high to give that small window of opportunity for a spouse, partner, children, whoever to get out of the situation of being stuck with an addict. Even just a few days in jail and potential for legal intervention affords at least that opportunity which is worth more than anything.

You can quite literally OD, receive as many narcan sprays as it takes to bring you back, get medically assessed onsite, decline transport to the hospital, and then OD again once everyone leaves with complete immunity from the law.

It might sound good on paper to decriminalize things, but when you get the experience of dragging the OD body out of the house in front of their family and they can just walk back in shortly later to do it all over again with full legal immunity, society has failed. Been there, some that.

I think one thing we can agree on is the drug epidemic sucks. It sucks for kids born into the middle of it. It sucks for people who find themselves one way or another hooked on substances, especially meth. It sucks for society at large. I've been burglarized, had the back door of my house smashed in, had my computer stolen, along with a lot of other irreplaceable stuff, family heirlooms, had the window's smashed on my car multiple times, etc. etc. My neighbour's houses have all been burglarized at some point. All of that is because of the drug epidemic. 99% I fear for my daughter's future in this mad world. I just want sensible regulation that will actually make a difference to improve society, rather than dragging it further down this pit of decline we seem to be stuck in. What we've been doing doesn't seem to work, and the "justice" system seems to make things worse. That's just my opinion. I totally get where you're coming from though. When you see a terrible situation you should be able to do something to make it better. A cop should have some leeway to use their own discretion. You can take someone into protective custody without charging them with a drug offence. I don't know.

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

The war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. You only have to see the size of the American prison population and look on YouTube at some of the videos of streets in major US cities filled with zombies, off their faces on fentanyl / tranq. Looks like something out of Day Of The Dead.

If you legalise all drugs you're still gonna have plenty of problems, but at this point it's worth a try. The billions spent on incarcerating all those people and the billions spent on the DEA could be used to fund decent treatment centers that people can access in a speedy fashion.

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it will never work with drugs.

Drugs won the war on drugs.


I would make an exception for Clan, though. If they wanted to bring in a law making that illegal then they would have my full support.

 

[Winnipeger]

Drugs won the war on drugs.

That's a good one. Couldn't agree more.

I would make an exception for Clan, though. If they wanted to bring in a law making that illegal then they would have my full support.

 

[Andriko]

All interesting points. On the political side of things, NZ have scrapped their legislation. It's being widely suggested here that the UK will be unlikely to want to be seen as a test case for reducing liberties rather than an early adopter of a life-saving public health policy. I think this is probably correct, and the policy will be scrapped (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking!).

It seems they've claimed that government revenue is the reason for scrapping it, though I suspect that's just an excuse - no one can publicly say anything positive or neutral about smoking. The real reason, and the reason they will probably back track in the UK, is simply how unworkable it is as a policy - are they really going to ID 50 year olds who try and buy cigarettes?

What is more likely to end up happening is either the UK will stick with it and end up having to ban tobacco completely to make it work, at which time we will all then get tax free black market smokes, or they will use the new track and trace systems they have to cap how much you can buy per week or something.

The only hope we really have is that the anti-smoking laws have become so extreme that the next generation of kids think it's cool again.

 

[Briar Lee]

The stark fact is we are all nicotine addicts.

Not so badly addicted perhaps as cigarette smokers but addicts nevertheless.

If there was a legal, safe way to market tiny doses of synthetic opiates, which is what fentanyl is, then we’d have more opiate addicts and hardly any fatal overdoses.

But since opiate abuse is considered even more immoral than using tobacco it will not happen in our lifetimes.