To all those people fighting for access to drugs and medicines necessary for their cure or alleviation of pain from chronic, deadly or debilitating ailments and diseases - that affect not only themselves but also their families and their carers’ that have been denied such prescriptions on the grounds of cost or shortage;
To those who fight for their places in affordable, clean and decent care homes for the elderly, institutions for the mentally handicapped and for hospices for the dying;
I raise a glass to you and wish you and your families well in your fight and hope you achieve your aims and get what you need, for I am ashamed, my tax is being handed out to scum to pay for their heroin whilst you go wanting!.
I have been advocating heroin clinics like this for years. It is controlled, safe & can be linked to all kinds of conditions eg birth control. The alternative is our massive burglary rate, funding of organised crime and an ever growing heroin sub-culture.
It shouldn't be so expensive tho. Our solidiers in Afghanistan confiscate £billions worth of heroin every year.
Yes Dave and from what I've read, the London clinic has been successful in reducing both burglary and heroin use in the area. It's obviously not an ideal solution but if it works then the scheme should be extended.
It's no good at all to have politicians coming up with policies likely to be embraced by The Mail or The Telegraph which are completely ineffective.
I actually agree with Vespasian's points but it should not be an either/or situation.
chronic, deadly or debilitating ailments and diseases
Substitute the 'ailments and disease' for 'illness / affliction' and you'll find heroin addiction a good example of what you're talking about, so fear not, your taxes are being put to good use in helping those suffering and not being wasted as you suggest.
I am in 2 minds about this... No one made those guys go out and take heroin. The ailment is 100% self inflicted.
So yes the easy option is great and it is beautifuly PC Make a clinic and treat the addicts and the old NHS will pay.
Ouch that is my tax pounds (OK not mine but yours anyway) that is going into that particular drain.
But what is the effective alternative.. cure them and then punish them?, make them pay in some way for treatment? I don't know?
I suppose it is a statistical thing.. what percentage of addicts are weaned off addiction, how many(%) stay clean 3 months, 1 year 5 years after treatment?
If these percentages are high then I guess we should continue to support them.. but if these are just a glorified legal source for addicts to get a fix then I say emphatically no.
According to official figures, 10 per cent of drug addicts commit 75 per cent of the acquisitive crimes in the Britain. But the number of offences committed by the heroin addicts taking part in the shooting gallery scheme fell from an average of 40 each per month before they were admitted to "about half a dozen a month" after six months of intensive therapy, according to Professor John Strang, the head of the National Addiction Centre at the Maudsley Hospital, who is leading the study.
Instead of buying street heroin every day, the 150 volunteers are now buying it only four or five times a month on average – while a third of them have completely stopped "scoring" the drug on the streets.
Professor Strang said: "This is genuinely exciting news. These are people with a juggernaut-sized heroin problem and I really didn't know whether we could turn it around. We have succeeded with people who looked as if their problem was unturnable, and we have done it in six months."
Seriously, at this rate, it's cheaper to keep them in indefinite treatment than have them committing 10 burglaries/muggings a week.
Considering that these outpatients are cutting down gradually, the chances of restarting once treatment is over are much reduced.
Then consider the thousands of heroin babies born. It's a no-brainer.
Matt - The point about this execise according to the radio 4 interview yesterday with the guy running the programme is nothing more than substituting "street" heroin for this "clean" stuff they get from Switzerland. There seems to be no other reason for this scheme, they are not trying to get addicts to stop taking drugs or rehab them any way - it merely redefines who the pushers are; from street pushers to the Government as a State pusher.
According to this guy yesterday the effect of the programme has been a reduction in crime - triff! great! but we already have a police force and criminal justice system for that.
I fear that my taxes are being wasted as I happen to think that if this pilot scheme continues or is indeed widened it will exacerbate the situation by creating a sub-class of state sponsored drug addicts. There has already been a myriad of schemes, initiatives, drug czars and community programmes all professing to have the solution to the "drug problem" and all trying to get addicts off of drugs and into rehab. Unfortunately all seem to have failed as drug addiction is rising at an alarming rate. Therefore, apart from pushing Kite Mark drugs and needles what is the purpose of this scheme?
For this reason I fear my taxes are being wasted and would wish my money to go to more deserving people! Such schemes if indeed they are neccessary should in my oppinion be operated on a charitable basis.
The point about this execise according to the radio 4 interview yesterday with the guy running the programme is nothing more than substituting "street" heroin for this "clean" stuff they get from Switzerland. There seems to be no other reason for this scheme, they are not trying to get addicts to stop taking drugs or rehab them any way
Substituting street heroin for clean heroin will save lives and will ultimately save the health service money. It is the moral thing to do as well as the most efficient way to spend taxpayers' money. Remember this story from Scotland a few years ago??
merely redefines who the pushers are; from street pushers to the Government as a State pusher.
Can you give one reason why the latter is not infinitely preferrable???
Quote:
I fear that my taxes are being wasted as I happen to think that if this pilot scheme continues or is indeed widened it will exacerbate the situation by creating a sub-class of state sponsored drug addicts
I have already shown you how in reality this system provides the greatest value for money for the taxpayer - as has Dave Gould. Your point about exacerbating the situation is one that those who are against legalising drugs commonly come up with but is in fact entirerly ridiculous.
Ok so clean heroin is now available and paid for by the government??? So Vespa, you have clearly been considering becoming a smack head for a while but have been a bit put off by the possibility of contaminated product. At last!!! You and the hoardes of other people desparate to get hooked on heroin can all head down to their local drop in centre and shoot up on the state...................................or maybe not,eh?
Quote:
Such schemes if indeed they are neccessary should in my oppinion be operated on a charitable basis.
I reckon drugs charities would jump at the chance. As things stand, the law will prevent this from happening. But hey progress takes time and this looks like a good step forward to anyone with the ability to take off the blinkers.
Substituting clean dope for street. To be brutally honest it matters not to me whether they live or die Matt - not very humane I know but..... Anyway if they want to fry their brains down to the size of maggots shit with either then ultimately it's their choice - just not with my money!
Regarding crime - as I said above we already have that covered with the police and judiciary. The short comings of that is another matter! If, however, it is the intention of the governement to pay criminals not to commit crimes then how much more money do we need to lay out in bribes and can we then do away with the Police?
Quote:
I reckon drugs charities would jump at the chance. As things stand, the law will prevent this from happening. But hey progress takes time and this looks like a good step forward to anyone with the ability to take off the blinkers.
A good point!
Maybe one that is being looked at by some charities - you tell me? If the Government can supply drugs to addicts then perhaps "licensed" charities could do the same?
Well I think this is a damn good idea and about time too.
We have comprehensively *lost* the so-called "War on Drugs" and we need to look for alternative solutions and this seems to be by far the best on offer.
Anyway if they want to fry their brains down to the size of maggots shit with either then ultimately it's their choice - just not with my money!
Perhaps you live in a crime-free area?
Quote:
Regarding crime - as I said above we already have that covered with the police and judiciary. The short comings of that is another matter!
I suspect even in North Korea there's a drugs problem. Why dismiss an effective solution on the pretense that policing is going to make an ounce (geddit?) of difference...?
Hi Dave - Policing aside, is this scheme effective - will it be effective? You seem to be in the biz you tell me.
I just feel that if I had a quid for every person that has come on TV or Radio saying they have an effective scheme to deal (heehee) with addicts or get them in rehab I would be swimming in champagne!
I have a sneeking suspicion that this scheme will wither and die like the addicts it purports to offer hope to, like just about every other scheme that has been hailed as the way forward.
And what pisses me right off? Is that only this morning on the radio we hear of a day care centre that caters for the severely handicapped, having to cut its services because it is having it's funding cut!
Anyway as I said if they want to bribe criminals not to commit crimes then let charities do it.
I tend to think of addiction in terms of 3 main challenges:
1. The cravings/compulsion.
2. The automatic decision to indulge.
3. Addict's environment & other psych problems.
Assuming they use group counselling & CBT, #1 should be improved but remain a problem. AA say "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." It's not true, they just don't know how to rewire people's brains.
#2 gets fixed indirectly. Instead of cooking up, the addict learns to go to the clinic instead.
#3 is the main one they can help with. CBT works wonders with most types of depression and other "can't cope" type problems. If they can get people away from heroin, get them jobs & houses and clean (or cleaning-up) friends, that's half the battle.
I find addiction really easy to treat because I can treat #1 in minutes. I think I could crack the national drugs problem within a couple of years. The thought of having to work within the NHS is quite offputting though.
Actually, having a friend or two over there I’ve got a bit of a line to Switzerland on this one...
The pilot there was deemed to be a success, except by the quite nasty right wing ‘people’s party’ (something like UKIP, but with much more clout), who has everlastingly been trying to shut it down before it ever produced results.
First off, remember that heroin only costs such phenomenal amounts on the street due to its proscription. To legal suppliers it’s the equivalent to any opiate prescription drug. So the prices really don’t compare.
Second. The reason for its introduction, from what I hear, were the inherent problems with methadone. Apparently this substitute can be harder to kick than the heroin itself, creating a crime spiral all of its own.
Apparently the scientists behind the study have hailed it a success. If out of bias or not I can’t tell. I’m not a scientist.
But from the way I read this, this is not an open-ended scheme by which the state becomes the pusher, but a means by which to wean addicts off heroin more effectively.
It seems to be more practical and safer doing it with ever diminishing doses of good quality heroin, than by using methadone.
So have I problem with this idea? Why? If it’s more effective than methadone and we’re already handing out free methadone anyhow, where’s the problem?
I remember living in Zurich and the drug problem was huge there. I’m told they’ve managed to make quite a bit of progress in clearing things up. This scheme apparently is one small part in these efforts.
Hell, if it works, why knock it? I’d stress that the Swiss are generally a traditional, conservative and somewhat cautious people.
They’re not the types to sanction easy-go-lucky free drug handouts… I don’t’ think for one moment that will be what’s happening.
Yes, it means the state being a drug supplier.
But hey, it’s not as if the state is not unwittingly implicit in the drugs trade.
It’s prohibition which pushes prices sky-high and thereby keeps the vicious spiral of endless motivation to supply the market spinning at a frantic pace.
I’m more interested in getting people off drugs and reducing crime, than in the moral quandry of state-supplied heroin.
If this does it best, then that’s fine by me.
This is very much a debate of pragmatism vs. moral superiority. To explain in more detail, do we wish to ask a question or make a very conventional, intellectually bankrupt statement. To wit:
"What are the possible solutions to the drug addiction problem" vs. "Drugs are evil and all users should be shot!!!!!!!!"
These people are human beings. They have addictions. They do stupid, illegal and criminal things - which they should go to prison for. However, I do get a little worried that some people dehumanize people so easily.
Vespasian, let me ask you. Would you still oppose these measures if it were proven they reduced the harmful effect these substances have on communities; all the way from police budgets dropping to needles vanishing from playgrounds? Would you rather have pragmatic success or a happy feeling that you still have the 'toughest' stance on drugs?
You suggest that it is quite unfair that you, the taxpayer should pay for these social programs. I can understand why you would feel this way.
However, by being against drug legalisation, you're supporting and endorsing a black market. You may not see it that way. You probably see it as being against a horrible and destructive force in society. The problem with this viewpoint is that drugs will always exist as two laws surpass the abstraction that is drug legislation; supply and demand, and nature. Nature is obviously very closely tied to supply, and although the human race is adept at wiping out species, you would have to agree that it is impossible and laughable to think we can make extinct all plants and chemicals required to produce psychoactive drugs. Even if we had the technology, we need morphine for hospitals... there's no way out. It's a dead end.
To reduce the huge burden on police, social schemes are brought in - and they work - to a degree. You bring up the critical issue of a new 'welfare state' or a 'drugfare state'. I agree, as a fiscal conservative, I don't want my money being spent on other people’s addictions.
The solution, of course, is to allow private enterprise to control supply - with government regulation. This will allow for competition, lower prices, and drug addicts that pay tax to society rather than be a drain on society. In effect, they will pay for the social destruction they cause, whilst reaping the benefits of a socialist style program. To repeat slightly: a) cleaner needles>less spread of disease, b)less needles lying in playgrounds, d)greatly reduced criminal action such as mugging old ladies or stealing from high street stores.
This is the most feasible solution. I think social schemes are a step in the right direction but are by definition inefficient; we would be in effect subsidising the costs of propping up a black market economy.
You have to ask yourself a question:
What is more important to me and my children, a) Appearing to be tough and having the moral high ground or b) Actually choosing a policy that economically, scientifically and pragmatically deals with a phenomenon we have helped create.
I apologise for the crudity of my grammar. I am pretending to work and my English suffers whilst under such surveillance.
You have to ask yourself a question:
What is more important to me and my children, a) Appearing to be tough and having the moral high ground or b) Actually choosing a policy that economically, scientifically and pragmatically deals with a phenomenon we have helped create.
And it's a very good question, and one that our Politicians should be asked on a daily basis.
Unfortunately both the Tories and Labour have dug themselves into holes with their "tough on crime" rhetoric and neither dares try to do anything sensible for fear of being called "soft on crime" by the others, even though many of their "tough" policies have clearly failed.
What hacks my nads in respect of this scenario is that tax payers money is being used to fund criminals not to commit crime - that’s how it reads to me. Drugs are being purchased by the government, handed to addicts in order to cut down on presumably local criminality.
That raises a number of questions for me, not least; what does that say about the state of law enforcement and policing in this country! If it is deemed necessary or desirable to hand out drugs to addicts so as not to commit crime do we also give cars to car thieves to stop them stealing cars or DVD players to burglars? Also this scheme does not stress rehabilitation, it can be a part of it but the primary goal is to provide clean drugs that are offered against what they hope will be good behaviour – so to speak. This in my humble opinion perpetuates their addiction. What happens then when, as I suspect, the scheme withers and dies and leaves these people high and dry (to coin a phrase)? They go back on the street and nothing has been achieved.
In the meantime more deserving people are being denied care or treatment or therapy because there are shortages of funds! That is the injustice for me and thus as a tax payer I protest against my taxes being used in that fashion.
That raises a number of questions for me, not least; what does that say about the state of law enforcement and policing in this country! If it is deemed necessary or desirable to hand out drugs to addicts so as not to commit crime do we also give cars to car thieves to stop them stealing cars or DVD players to burglars?
I'm afraid you raise a logical fallacy here.
It's nothing to do with the quality of law enforcement. You are asking the police to enforce a totally unenforceable law. Let's take your example of theft. You have two people involved: the thief and the victim of theft. In a case like that the victim has a vested interest to report that crime to the police; first to acknowledge the crime has occurred and secondly to action an investigation that will hopefully cause the criminal to be caught - unlikely as that may be. The same goes with murder, rape or any other deplorable crime.
With a drug deal, you have two willing participants; neither of which have any inclination to report the other. The only way to stop this transaction is through Soviet Union style techniques; informants, wire tapping etc. The only way society could dramatically reduce drug usage through prohibition is if we lived in a completely totalitarian society. Then, yes, law enforcement would be extremely efficient and would take no prisoners – no pun intended. However, does this totalitarian society not violate your pre-existing political stance? I don't know. It certainly doesn't sound like a prosperous world.
Quote:
What hacks my nads in respect of this scenario is that tax payers money is being used to fund criminals not to commit crime.
Why do you think they're doing this? It's because they can't enforce their own laws. I remember in New York (It may be another city, forgive my poor memory) in the 90's, some police chief stated that "If only our budget was doubled, we'd be able to tackle the drug problem with total efficiency." Since then the budget has quadrupled and the problems have gotten worse! The reason? Legislation will never be as powerful as mother nature (supply) and demand. Even in places like Saudi Arabia and Sudan there is still a lot of drug usage. So it seems that even in the most draconian societies, we cannot get the results we want. So, I think it is unfair of you to criticize our police when they're being asked to do an impossible task.
I agree that a social system will largely be inefficient and it is totally unfair that heroin addicts can get their fix yet Alzheimer's patients can't get the drugs they need to live a dignified life. However, we have to make a pragmatic judgment call. If social schemes are more effective at reducing the effects on communities than sheer enforcement, is it not obvious we should follow the most successful model?
This is why I support full drug legalisation. I will agree that it will not end drug use, but we have to come to terms that total drug eradication is a ridiculous, impossible, expensive and intellectually bankrupt theology. Only when we realise this can we start discussing how to reduce the harm of drug use on society. The moral high ground is a comfortable place, but the burden of proof that our current legislation works rests firmly on the prohibitionists.
Until we're allowed to discuss other ideas rationally, the taxpayer will continue to fight a perpetual, infinite and exorbitant war. A war exasperated by the costs of a black market economy, a war that you and I are paying for (whether by law enforcement or social schemes) - and you have my full agreement that this isn't right by any stretch of the imagination.
Hard to argue with any of that, Jake - it would be interesting to force a Minister to respond to it live on air. The best solutions will obviously be somewhere short of full criminalisation and will probably vary from drug to drug. To my mind, all drugs apart from heroin and cocaine should be legalised and taxed, if only to divert drug £billions away from organised crime. But it's undoubtedly a gamble both politically and with the risk of creating an even bigger addiction sub-culture.
Evening Jake – I wasn't really criticising the police so much as questioning the rationale behind the decision of the government to act in this fashion. A confrontation with the message they are sending out to the public about their stance on drugs, maybe? I was more criticising the legislature and their inept manipulation of the police to make it look like there is law enforcement in respect of drug control on the streets.
I know full well that people will seek out drugs, they have since time began and will continue so long as there is a supply. I also fully accept that more often than not they will commit crimes to fund their addiction, as you say its a real pisser, what can you do? Dave's comment about just legalising the whole fucking lot may have some sort of perverse logic to it. Why not flog it in the newsagents – 20 Bensons and rock ta everso! Take the tax and Bobs your uncle. On the other hand the consequences of it would be awful for young people; shooting all sorts of crap into themselves and being totally fucked up before they reach their twenties and probably dead by thirty – their choice but not really a great life!
Which is the whole point I suppose – you listen to these screwed up people and bar none they wish to Christ they had never started on drugs. The first innocent drag on wacky bakky and then before they know it they're on up to the dizzy heights of shooting shit into their veins in some London underpass hoping to fuck that they wake up in the morning. Yeah I guess that's a good idea! Make it legal so they can die quicker and put them out of their misery.
Quote:
However, we have to make a pragmatic judgement call. If social schemes are more effective at reducing the effects on communities than sheer enforcement, is it not obvious we should follow the most successful model?
Maybe or maybe not! Yorkie's comment above is also a valid alternative is it not? Just lock these poor fuckers up in some prison where they don't get out into they are clean, they can't get harmed and they don't commit any further crimes. THEN using the money that would have been wasted on buying them drugs, trendy but useless rehab schemes, treating their hepatitis and bugger knows what else, use that money to set them up again to reintegrate them into the world – or offer them cyanide capsule if they can't hack it.
Dave's comment about just legalising the whole fucking lot may have some sort of perverse logic to it. Why not flog it in the newsagents – 20 Bensons and rock ta everso!... On the other hand the consequences of it would be awful for young people; shooting all sorts of crap into themselves and being totally fucked up...
The simple way of looking at legalisation is to see it as open season for dealers/supermarkets etc. and that everyone will flock to the shop to get all the drugs they can get their hands on as if it was a new gadget for xmas.
But that is just a simple view. People are not going to go running to try all these new products, they already get a lot of education about the drugs and they make a choice not to do certain drugs, of course there is nothing stopping them trying drugs now.
I support the 'shooting gallery' scheme, however I know it will only amount to being a burden on the tax payer while we still have the same policy on drugs.
The only way it is going to work is to legalise all drugs
Along with legalisation these things need to/will happen:
- Government can provide licenses.
- One drug per premises. No multi-drug shops.
- businesses/shop keepers will only desire to sell softer drugs, where there is a market and on moral grounds.
- Age restrictions on sales.
- people will go to legal outlets because it is safer & more reliable (quality, labelled products etc.)
- Hard drug addicts can be occupied in 'shooting galleries' funded by savings from drug enforcement & tax revenue from other drugs.
- Criminal dealers will loose their addicts to the galleries and will not have a market left for their soft drugs.
- More police time to deal with drug & alcohol related ASB and to clamp down on persistent criminal dealers.
- Prisons will empty out of people locked up for simple drug possession.
Of course there are many other benefits, regulations the government can add and no doubt you could identify some negatives, but I am sure that those negatives are either too insignificant compared to the negatives of prohibition or that they can easily be dealt with using the extra police time made or the money made.
you also said in reply to yorker>
Quote:
Just lock these poor fuckers up in some prison where they don't get out into they are clean
This method has a stupidly poor success rate, entirely due to the ignorant and narrow minded grasp on the situation that the first people (& supporters) to suggest this method had.
For example heroin addicts have a chemical dependence for heroin, if you don't treat this then once they are released they will go straight back to their addiction.
This method has a stupidly poor success rate, entirely due to the ignorant and narrow minded grasp on the situation that the first people (& supporters) to suggest this method had.
For example heroin addicts have a chemical dependence for heroin, if you don't treat this then once they are released they will go straight back to their addiction.
This is where you face problems though.
People with this attitude have no interest in finding actual solutions to the problems drugs do to communities. They have more interest in feeding their moral superiority, even if it paradoxically means promoting a barbaric and inhumane practice. If this barbaric and inhumane practice actually worked - it would have merit and one couldn't take the argument off the table.
However, it doesn't work, but that doesn't seem to matter. It's still more important to 'appear' tough on drugs rather than fixing the route causes of a devastating natural, international problem.
Quote:
Maybe or maybe not! Yorkie's comment above is also a valid alternative is it not
If you live in a barbaric society that has no absolutely interest in removing the cycle of drug dependence, then yes, it's a totally valid solution.
A question to you Vesp, should we jail alcoholics?
