BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Legalisation was YOUR idea. You just wanted to charge for it.....

Yes, and I gave sensible reasons as to why.

Where was YOUR heroin going to come from?

If its legal we could produce it here under sensible controls. Pretty obvious I would have thought.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43484508]How does that support your crazy notion of giving it to these parasites for free?

Given he above I'd be more in favour of making Methodone free than heroin, at least we'd have more attrition of the user base.[/QUOTE]

Methadone IS free (Well, prescribed), but it gets traded for heroin.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43484614]Yes, and I gave sensible reasons as to why.



If its legal we could produce it here under sensible controls. Pretty obvious I would have thought.[/QUOTE]

And we could do that if it was free too.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, I think we've seen how effective the current heroin treatment regime is. Methadone kills more addicts than heroin. And it has a street value.

So what actually IS your solution?

It appears to be a free house, free living costs and free heroin.

When I say free, I mean contributions from other peoples wages.

Surely, I'm wrong?

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Methadone IS free (Well, prescribed), but it gets traded for heroin.

As an aside, why does it get traded for heroin. If it is used as a substitute then presumably it has a similar effect and the other person in the exchange would be another smack head so why trade it? Is it a matter of purity? If so why, surely they could mix it with something to have more to trade like they do other drugs?

Genuine questions, I'm not a junkie so I don't know.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And we could do that if it was free too.

Because then the normal tax payers would be subsidising addicts which is the thing we resent most about our current system.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what actually IS your solution?

It appears to be a free house, free living costs and free heroin.

When I say free, I mean contributions from other peoples wages.

Surely, I'm wrong?

My belief in social housing assumes a rental charge.

I've never suggested free living costs. In fact, I have argued against those who assume such things exist.

Free heroin would be for the benefit of everyone.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43484972]Because then the normal tax payers would be subsidising addicts which is the thing we resent most about our current system.[/QUOTE]

But it would cost so much less than the current system. Isn't that a positive thing?

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

My belief in social housing assumes a rental charge.

I've never suggested free living costs. In fact, I have argued against those who assume such things exist.

Free heroin would be for the benefit of everyone.

Sorry, but, who is going to actually employ these heroin addicts so that they can pay the rent?

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

My belief in social housing assumes a rental charge.

I've never suggested free living costs. In fact, I have argued against those who assume such things exist.

Free heroin would be for the benefit of everyone.

1. Many of the parasites we are talking about pay their rent with money they are given for free.

2. Heroin doesn't benefit it's users much.