doctorow at September 29th, 2013 12:22 — #1
fuzzyfungus at September 29th, 2013 13:09 — #2
I hope he's ready for a little involuntary retirement in the immediate future...
neueheimat at September 29th, 2013 13:26 — #3
The UK does have some of this in place. The so-called British System allows special psychiatric clinics to provide drugs to addicts. This has allowed many addicts to retain a great deal of control over their lives, living as productive citizens rather than desperate social outcasts. The problem is that there's a long term trend of closing these clinics one by one as soon as there's a whiff of suspicion that a psychiatrist behaved improperly. And they never open a new clinic so they're getting thin on the ground. It's stupid since they shouldn't close a whole institution just because of what one person did or didn't do. It's even more stupid because every closing causes a surge in crime and casualties from over-dosing and gang wars in the area covered by the former clinic.
ayprof at September 29th, 2013 13:28 — #4
In other news, politicians really good at ignoring things.
ecologic at September 29th, 2013 14:30 — #5
The word psiocybe ought to be spelled "psilocybe".
miasm at September 29th, 2013 14:55 — #6
Good points, well made. Maybe it could work in the UK.
Certainly the first copper to make a significant impact on, even by re-contextualisation of, the numbers will ensure their prominence.
retepslluerb at September 29th, 2013 14:55 — #7
My first though was, that he was aiming for de-factor early retirement with full compensation.
david_hill at September 29th, 2013 15:05 — #8
There appears to be a dichotomy between the way that the Police and Home Office think when attempting to combat the ever-growing problem of class ‘A’ drug addiction in Britain, now the ‘official’ European drug capital of the EU.
For the outcry to decriminalise all class ‘A’ drugs by the chief constable of Durham Police has both credence and hypocrisy mixed together when we look at the police and the Home Office’s past record on this issue. Treatment is definitely the only way forward to reduce the problem significantly, but where the present regimes of ‘maintenance’ and treatment are just not working effectively enough to stop the dire addition rise in the UK. But where both senior police officers in England, Scotland and Wales together with the Home Office have totally shunned the introduction into the UK of the Vietnamese ‘cure’ for class ‘A’ drug addiction even though this humane treatment has also no ‘cold turkey’ – no other treatment in the world has this prerequisite benefit to get hard addicts off drugs and why it is so successful in Vietnam. Indeed now this scientifically produced curative treatment is rapidly taking over in Vietnam within their NHS from methadone et al as more and more drug addicts are cured by the week with no side effects as the medication is from non-addictive plant extracts that is now synthesised in modern pharmaceutical capsules. But what seems to be the situation in the UK is that the police and Home Office are hand in glove here and where the powerful pharmaceutical companies do not want this cure to be introduced into Britain as they know that it will clearly affect their bottom-line. On the one hand they make public outcries but on the other they ignore the treatment that can literally cure and solve the problem to a great extent. But added to this, top government ministers in both the present government and the last government know of this ‘unique’ treatment but where they have denied access for the people of Britain. Why politically have they done this is the big question as crime and human suffering would be dramatically reduced overnight? The only answer must be that the giant pharmaceutical groups are pulling the strings but which causes great harm to the British people.
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Ps. You might respectfully visit http://foolscrow.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/return-to-nuremberg-big-pharma-must-answer-for-crimes-against-humanity/ also for an insight of what is going on behind the scenes. You might then realise that things are not as they seem if you are a journalist with openness at heart.
nonentity at September 29th, 2013 17:21 — #9
I am deeply disappointed that the government has not followed through on its initial support for a minimum price for alcohol.
Given how incredibly easy and inexpensive it is to brew decent alcohol (and even easier if you're not too worried about how decent it is), would raising the price really have that much of an effect? You could probably make hard liquor less attractive, but I'd imagine there would be a risk of bringing back a market for moonshine.
ygret at September 29th, 2013 18:07 — #10
Can you provide information on this cure being used in Vietnam?
fuzzyfungus at September 29th, 2013 19:49 — #11
Any nontrivial moonshine market not driven by 'artisinal' hobbyist types would be a signal that you've set your sights rather too high; but I suspect that sheer convenience (along with standardization and commercial/cultural glamorization of the commercial stuff) would probably allow you to sneak some price increases in there.
Full bans definitely create new distribution networks, and very high taxes somewhere in the chain (as with cigarettes in many jurisdictions) create an incentive to smuggle the goods past the taxes and then fold them back into the retain chain; but retail minimums, unless overplayed, have some room to work.
As for how much effect you'd see, I suspect that depends on whether people (in general) walk in to liquor stores with a quantity in mind (I'm here for a handle, or a 12-pack) and pay what it takes, or whether they walk in with a $20 in hand and see what they can do. In the former case, probably less effect. In the latter case, probably greater.
tualha at September 29th, 2013 22:42 — #12
World Innovation Foundation? Hah. Your link to that crazy rant on foolscrow doesn't exactly help your credibility either, "Doctor" David Hill, as in, honorary doctorate, National Academy of Kyrgyzstan. Snort.
doctorow at September 30th, 2013 00:41 — #13
phuzz at September 30th, 2013 05:11 — #14
It should be a straight-forward analysis of costs. Does it cost more to ban most drugs, which has obvious policing costs, together with the costs to the NHS to treat the results of addiction, or would it be cheaper to provide drugs on the NHS, together with programs to reduce addiction.
Of course, as the UK government has pointed out several times*, it's not interested in a logical argument, because drugs are bad mmkay?
- for instance, by sacking the aforementioned Dr David Nutt, when he advocated an evidence-led drugs policy.
itsumishi at September 30th, 2013 09:06 — #15
If you're going to try to claim that you're the Chief Executive of an organisation full of Nobel Laureate members, it might be worth learning to write coherently.
fuzzyfungus at September 30th, 2013 09:16 — #16
Tell me I'm not the only one who immediately thought of the most notorious 'herbal remedy' produced in the Golden Triangle when they saw this phrase?
lishevita at September 30th, 2013 10:48 — #17
The sort of people that would drink less because of the minimum price rules are the sort of people who barely even cook for themselves, mostly eating cheap processed foods, frozen things and stuff that comes in cans. This isn't just about poverty, there are more layers involved.
I kinda wonder, though, if minimum pricing would just increase the amount of liquor theft. Theft is already a big enough issue for many stores with alcohol that they keep everything with alcohol behind counters and protective glass or fencing.
david_hill at September 30th, 2013 13:20 — #18
New comment on Fools Crow's Blog
Fools Crow commented on Return To Nuremberg: Big Pharma Must Answer For Crimes Against Humanity.
in response to @Tualha
As they say on Wikipedia: CITATION NEEDED. For pretty much every claim you put here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your entire screed screams “This was written by a total crank!” Protip: Your paranoid rant would be more credible if you didn’t persist in referring to Zyklon B as a “nerve gas”. It wasn’t. Nerve [...]
Thank you for your comment, Tualha. Technically you are correct in that, Zyklon-B is a cyanide “blood” agent, not a nerve agent such as Sarin, but according to the UPMC Center for Health Security: “The central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular systems are chiefly affected.”
And a Congressional Research Service report says that blood agents like Zyklon-B “…act through inhalation or ingestion and impair cellular oxygen use. The central nervous system is especially susceptible to this effect.”
You could have made your point, Tualha, without being rude and insulting. The real point of the use of Zyklon-B is not whether it attacked the nervous system or the respiration of the cells, but the awful murder of so many people.
gilbertwham at September 30th, 2013 13:35 — #19
Exact same copypasta's on the guardian/observer page...
gilbertwham at September 30th, 2013 13:38 — #20
What's the exact classification of the Nazi's favourite poisonin' poison got to do with this shonky heroin addiction cure? And, is there any clinical research data available on said cure? Cos I sure couldn't find any.
next page →