You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@The_Seldom_Killer
Yes it is the same. Drug treatment programmes vary wildly across the whole of the country. If anything the variance is higher than that applied to illness treatment plans. This is rarely about policy on drug addicts or whether ill people should received treatment for whatever ails them, it's about money. In an ideal world all people would get the help that they need. Alas, until some kind of Banksian Culture model utopia comes about we're always going to be at the mercy of finances.
You rail against the system from the luxury of ignorance. I for one am greatful that I never have to live a life that means that one day I hear a news story about someone who died because of a policy decision that I made. It wouldn't matter that a different policy would have killed five other people at their expense, I would still have to live with a lifetime of what if's and maybe's and howabout's. I'm also damn sure that if I cut treatment for drug users I would one day hear about a death because of it. Maybe I'm weak, but my concience would have a hard time because of it, because I never made and effort.
I hate that Oooh, it's better a mile away. If you really want I could track down a patient who was refused treatment that they would have got if they lived 10 metres away and another one, in exactly the same region, who's predicament was defined by 50 miles. If one any worse than another because of this idea of proximity. That's sensationalist gobshite spat out by tabloids to try and find the greatest amount of outrage. If you're going to read The Daily Mail or The Sun then at least have the decency to know when you're being manipulated, not least of all because these papers are generally in favour of regionalised financing and such articles will appear in the same edition, if not on the same page, as ones complaining about lack of local control over spending for local people with their local interests. It's is exactly the same issue and the way these papers use contradictoraly to suit their own agenda is fuckwittery of the highest order.