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

ILW

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?

WWH seems to like the idea of giving everything free to those that do not work, and giving the bill to those that do.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43484914]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.[/QUOTE]

Drugs get traded... such is the nature of drugs. Methadone is frequently under-prescribed in the initial titration, so one user needs a "top-up", while another user needs a fix.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

WWH seems to like the idea of giving everything free to those that do not work, and giving the bill to those that do.

In this case, the "bill" would be a MASSIVE saving. Surely that would be a good thing?

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43485252]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.[/QUOTE]

Well, if there was no benefit to the user, it wouldn't be so popular.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Many heroin addicts hold down jobs. The construction industry in the 90's was a hotbed of heroin use. The only real issue, both for users and the wider society, is affordability. If you can afford your habit, it's not a problem. If you can't, we all suffer.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

No, free heroin would probably increase usage. Legalising it but charging for it and using that money to educate against taking it and provide treatment would be a much better idea and still reduce the cost to society.

However, the legal profession make too much money out of it and so it would never get past the house of lords if they couldn't stop it in the commons.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, if there was no benefit to the user, it wouldn't be so popular.

I'm sorry, but you are nuts.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43485414]No, free heroin would probably increase usage. Legalising it but charging for it and using that money to educate against taking it and provide treatment would be a much better idea and still reduce the cost to society.

However, the legal profession make too much money out of it and so it would never get past the house of lords if they couldn't stop it in the commons.[/QUOTE]

There is some evidence to support the idea that cost is not the main factor when first embarking on a decent heroin habit. Countries where heroin has been legalised have not seen a sharp increase in usage as a result. And it's easier to target education.

ILW

does there come a point where you just give up on people that refuse to do anything for themselves?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you are nuts.

Well why do YOU think people initially use heroin? I'll accept that the first hit, maybe even the second too, could be down to curiosity. But it must be good to keep going back for more. People try not to repeat the unpleasant things in life.