Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by Chazz Rheinhold, Feb 10, 2017.
Honestly, are you taking the piss now?
So what difference are you making? You said you wanted change, so what are you doing to change it?
I have no rage, have you?
Sometimes, when I do cocaine, I steal grannies' purses and knock police officers' hats off.
But most of the time, I'm pretty chill.
No. Are you having trouble with your answers or dealing with facts?
There's hundreds of thousands who bet, for the vast majority it's a bit of harmless fun, for a minority it ruins their lives.
There's hundreds of thousands who drink alcohol, for the vast majority it's a bit of harmless fun, for a minority it ruins their lives.
There's hundreds of thousands who have the odd smoke or the odd toot, for the vast majority it's a bit of harmless fun, for a minority it ruins their lives.
Far too much black or white opinion on here, anecdotes are fine, but limited in their worth, unless you have experience of both sides.
On cocaine? You sure it's not baking soda?
Cheers. I read somewhere ages ago, I think it was on a site promoting the decrimilisation of drugs, and it was arguing the crime impact was massive, and that drug hauls by the law were counter productive, as the demand was the same, so the reduced supply simply put the price up, leading to more crime.
Then again, I think it was the same one arguing that the deaths and hospital admissions were largely a consequence of the ****e the drugs were cut with.
I know round about **** all about drugs.
I have no issue with people who use drugs, it's their choice. I don't condone including kids in the culture and don't find it a source for so-called humour.
The purpose of my anecdote was to give a real life refelection on how the illegal drug trade works and will be merciless in achieving its ends. Not everyone gets close to drugs and there's no harm in putting the illegal element of the discussion in context. Illegal gambling can be edgy, but not quite so bad or prolific.
I made it clear very early in this thread that I want to see drug control completely reviewed, I didn't go so far as to say legalise it as I would need to understand far more before making that leap - but if a sound argument could be made then, yes I would support making drug use legal in a controlled manner. My question then is, what would be the bad lads response and how big do you build the jails.
Are you saying I need to take drugs to have experience enough to form an opinio and comment?
In the US, where they have a far bigger problem than we do, they're investing a fortune in drug treatment programs.
They've calculated that a drug treatment program costs $4,700 a year, but prison costs $24,000 a year and the cost in crime is far higher. They think that every $1 they spend on treatment, saves them $7.
Any indication of success rates, or examples of the interventions?
I wasn't saying anything to anyone specifically, I was just making an observation, I think there's been far too many sweeping generalisations on this thread.
Everything is being lumped together, in my opinion it shouldn't be, if this thread was just about heroin it would make more sense.
This is a rough summary from California (though it lumps alcohol and illegal drugs together and it's not recent) - The cost of treating approximately 150,000 participants represented by the CALDATA study sample in 1992 was $209 million. Each day of treatment paid for itself on the day it was received, primarily through an avoidance of crime. The benefits of alcohol and other drug treatment outweighed the costs of treatment by ratios from 4:1 to greater than 12:1, depending on the type of treatment. Benefits after treatment persisted through the second year of follow-up for the limited number of participants followed for as long as 2 years. This suggests that projected cumulative lifetime benefits of treatment will be substantially higher than the shorter-term figures. The level of criminal activity declined by two-thirds from before treatment to after treatment. The greater the length of time spent in treatment, the greater the percentage of reduction in criminal activity. Declines of approximately two-fifths also occurred in the use of alcohol and other drugs from before treatment to after treatment. Approximately one-third reductions in hospitalizations were reported from before treatment to after treatment. For each type of treatment studied, there were slight or no differences in effectiveness based on gender, age, or ethnicity. Overall, treatment did not have a positive effect on the economic situation of the participants during the study period. 38 tables and 11 figures
It's taken 28 pages to drag that out of you and that's all you have? That is literally it? You've been banging on like you're some kind of ****ing Oracle? Acting all ****ing aloof. 'Oh I've worked professionally with these druggies, when I was a ****ing tree surgeon'. **** off. You've proper wummed me you ****. You've offered nothing to this debate, nothing at all. Congratulations on being a massive wum.
That's a decent start, are there any stats about addressing the problem at its source? It'd be cheaper for them if they could reduce the problem where it begins.
Google them you twat.
I had a quick google, but without any real knowledge, it's hard to know what's credible. At least stuff shared on here can get discussed and give a broader view....maybe.
Why are you calling me that?
OLM clearly knows where to look, better to ask somebody who knows where to find said information, I'm genuinely interested. I tried googling it and didn't get much, nothing credible anyway.
There's some interesting stuff on the US government website, but it's not practical to post from a phone, I'll try and remember to put some up tomorrow.
Cheers, I'm guessing it'll be mostly police figures and funding into the DA.