It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can We Use Drugs to Tackle Drugs Supply?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:29 PM
My Idea…
1. The state should offer drug addicts subscriptions to a clean supply of the drug(s) concerned in exchange for help in catching their original street drug dealer(s).
2. This could work by allowing those claiming to be addicted to illegal drugs a drug test to confirm that they are addicted to illegal drugs.
3. The drug addict would then supply the police enough intelligence about their drug dealer(s), to lead to their entrapment, arrest and conviction.
4. If a drug addict is unable to supply this information then they ether don’t have a drug dealer (in which case supplying the person with drugs may be counterproductive) or they do have a dealer but are obviously not desperate enough for drugs to help the police bring that person(s) to justice (therefore without such a compelling addiction it may also be counterproductive to supply such a drug addict with subscription drugs).

Note: Any addicts should still be able to get treatments such as Methadone.

Anticipated Effects…
1. In order to avoid prosecution it may become within the interests of drug dealers to be concerned about whether their own clients are addicted to their own drugs (as opposed to the status quo where it tends to be a terribly good thing for drug dealers).
2. Drug dealers with drug addicts as clients would “dry-up” and hence the cause of our drugs problem (i.e. the people who sell as well often promote drugs) would also dry up.
3. Although the state would initially have to spend more money on prisons to provide the prison places for drug dealers (and any crime caused by an increase in Street drug prices); it would be compensated through any wealth obtained by the Proceeds of Crimes Act.
Because the wealth of drug dealers can often total hundreds of thousands (if not millions of pounds) re-directing this wealth to the Home Office would make the 20-30 thousand pound a year prison costs seem like a relatively small one. Furthermore because (in the longer term) the initial supply-promotion of addictive drugs would be greatly reduced (if not virtually liquidated) then, there would be a reduction in crime caused by drug addicts, as well as their social costs. This would therefore literally leave both the state and the country a richer place.

4. Furthermore (having now secured themselves a safe supply of drugs) most (or at least many) drug addicts will still want to get themselves off their drugs dependency. Ether when the drug no longer provides the same high due to chemical changes in their brains receptors; or simply when they grow tirade of being a drug addict.

Background-Inspiration for This Idea…
Here’s another original idea…

Some months ago I read in the Independent how providing drug addicts with heroin through the states “substitution treatment programme” has given the drug an un cool medical image, reduced the number of new addicts and has reduced drug related crime against innocent people.

Meanwhile the Deputy Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire has suggested that heroin should be able to receive the drug on subscription through the NHS in order to reduce drug related crime. He says the average addict commits 432 offences a year, and that 3 quarters of street robbers test positive for heroin.

Personally I like any idea that will protect innocent people against the drug addict. It’s these people I care about most because they are more of them; and besides unlike the drug addict they were never dumb enough to end up trying heroin.
Also with our 80,000 prison places for a population of 60 million people so over full that the government is now having to use police cells to house convicted criminals
Calls for the no-brainer “traditionalist” approach of “double the sentences for dealers and addicts and you’ll reduce the crime” seem more unrealistic than ever. Especially because if this approach worked; perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are now? Because we pretty much are already following a hard-line policy…
(Up to 7 years for jail for possession, and up to life for dealing)\wip\11\1\1\heroin_opiates.html
2. aine:_heroin

Well What Do You Think
Is there any chance the government here or elsewhere in the West would try this idea?

I know that thanks that thanks to ten years of Gordon Brown, plus Labour running the Home Office under various home secretaries, there is hardly any space in our 1 prison place per 750 citizens system (my maths was 60,000,000 divide 80,000).

Given that U.K men live an average of 77 years and women 81
The government has 0.485 days of prison available for every year the average person lives.

77 times 52 weeks = 4004= divide 750 (ratio of prison places) = 5.338 weeks of prison per 77 year lifetime.
81 times 52 weeks = 4212= divide 750 (number of prison places) = 5.616 weeks of prison per 81 years of life time.

5.616 times 7 = 39.32 divide 81 = 0.485
5.338 times 7 = 37.366 divide 77 = 0.485

Is it really that surprising our country is full of Chavs, yobs and various career criminals? Surely it’s about time we at least exterminated the drugs part of the equation with truly radical-original ideas?

Politically Correct moral subtleties aside; (such as the principle of asking drug addicts to “volunteer” to “endanger themselves” to bring drug addicts to justice in exchange for safer drugs) I think this approach would basically say “Check-Mate” to the problem of the trade in all addictive illegal drugs.

new topics

log in