http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

They had a referendum, and over 2/3 of the population agreed that registered heroin addicts that can't be cured should be provided with heroin by the government.

They also, however, voted against legalizing marijuana.

Groovy.

It makes sense. If you were a heroin addict, would you pay for heroin or get it for free? If the latter is the case for most, then business starts to dry up for the street dealers and the number of them dwindles as they look for more viable avenues. In turn, this would mean that less people will try heroin, since supply is lower than before. Furthermore, out of those who do try it, they will fall under one of three categories: those who try it once and never touch it again, those who do it from time to time, and those who become addicts. The street dealer won't make much of a profit out of the first two, and he will lose the third client to the program that supplies free heroin. Hence street dealers will be further encouraged to look for more viable avenues, ones that don't carry as heavy a sentence as dealing heroin.

Ideally, a consequence of less dealers is that it will lead to less addicts, so that over time, there will be less people on the free heroin program. This, combined with the fact that addicts can lead lives that are more normal than if they weren't on the program, would lead to the government spending less funding on arresting junkies and dealers and putting them into programs.

It makes sense. If you were a heroin addict, would you pay for heroin or get it for free? If the latter is the case for most, then business starts to dry up for the street dealers and the number of them dwindles as they look for more viable avenues. In turn, this would mean that less people will try heroin, since supply is lower than before. Furthermore, out of those who do try it, they will fall under one of three categories: those who try it once and never touch it again, those who do it from time to time, and those who become addicts. The street dealer won't make much of a profit out of the first two, and he will lose the third client to the program that supplies free heroin. Hence street dealers will be further encouraged to look for more viable avenues, ones that don't carry as heavy a sentence as dealing heroin.

Ideally, a consequence of less dealers is that it will lead to less addicts, so that over time, there will be less people on the free heroin program. This, combined with the fact that addicts can lead lives that are more normal than if they weren't on the program, would lead to the government spending less funding on arresting junkies and dealers and putting them into programs.

Nice post, I didn't think of it that way.

It is also protection of property. Many heroin addicts steal to get enough money for their fix - giving them free heroin would greatly reduce the amount of break-and-enterings in that area.

The whole idea about the government providing heroin will always be a bit fucked up nonetheless. And where is the government going to get the heroin?

It makes sense. If you were a heroin addict, would you pay for heroin or get it for free? If the latter is the case for most, then business starts to dry up for the street dealers and the number of them dwindles as they look for more viable avenues. In turn, this would mean that less people will try heroin, since supply is lower than before. Furthermore, out of those who do try it, they will fall under one of three categories: those who try it once and never touch it again, those who do it from time to time, and those who become addicts. The street dealer won't make much of a profit out of the first two, and he will lose the third client to the program that supplies free heroin. Hence street dealers will be further encouraged to look for more viable avenues, ones that don't carry as heavy a sentence as dealing heroin.

Ideally, a consequence of less dealers is that it will lead to less addicts, so that over time, there will be less people on the free heroin program. This, combined with the fact that addicts can lead lives that are more normal than if they weren't on the program, would lead to the government spending less funding on arresting junkies and dealers and putting them into programs.

I was about to post the same thing, but since you've already said it -- this.

The whole idea about the government providing heroin will always be a bit fucked up nonetheless.

True, but having heroin clinics is a much better idea than the methadone clinics we have here in England. Heroin is an all-around safer drug.

They've been doing this in Vancouver for years.

True, but having heroin clinics is a much better idea than the methadone clinics we have here in England. Heroin is an all-around safer drug.

Are they heroin clinics or does the government just hand the addicts a weekly bag of heroin? (more red tape)


And what's methadone?

Are they heroin clinics or does the government just hand the addicts a weekly bag of heroin? (more red tape)


And what's methadone?

The video says they get heroin twice a day.

And what's methadone?

Come on. (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/)

They've been doing this in Vancouver for years.

No they haven't. In Vancouver they just have a place where you can shoot up with free clean needles and a nurse around.

Come on. (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/)

touche

No they haven't. In Vancouver they just have a place where you can shoot up with free clean needles and a nurse around.

Basically the same thing. But BYOH.

^ Uh, no, not the same thing you fucking 17 year old idiot.

Basically the same thing. But BYOH.

See Hare_Geist's reasoning above, what they did in Switzerland is much better.

^ Uh, no, not the same thing you fucking 17 year old idiot.

Is too!

In Canada they just have "shooting rooms" which is what they also had in Switzerland all up until now, this new law however states that the government will provide the actual product to the addicts free of charge, not just a safe facility to consume it.