Heroin on prescription

We seem to be forgetting about Aunt Norah; it's always the respectable, law abiding citizen that gets pushed to one side in these discussions. Perhaps if she started jacking up on crack meth or snorting mushrooms people would care about her a bit more. Which is very sad really.

These are psychologically fucked up and damaged people so you could argue that providing them with heroin on the NHS, coupled with counselling and with view to reduction is just as important as providing treatment for cancer.
Plus getting them away from the criminality and health hazards that are associated with the drug, eg. aids/burglary is better for society in general.

Cull the the ones that smoke. And the ones that drink. And the ones that eat fatty foods. And the ones that failed to take moderate exercise in their earlier years. And the ones that lead stressful lives. And the foreigners. And the ones with too much salt in their diets. And the ones that are overweight.

fixed

Should we not concentrate on sorting out drugs/treatments for cancer, diabetes and the like.

I understand these people need help but it was a choice (althouugh somewhat helped by x,y & z)unlike cancer etc.

*not meaning to come across all daily mail etc.

The association of drug addiction and choice isn't really reasonable. It isn't as if all the heroin addicts in the country woke up one day in their otherwise successful and enjoyable lives and decided that they would go and get hooked on a drug that would make them socially non-functional and then expect someone to sort everything out for them. I won't deny that there is a segment of addicts who have arrived at their position simply through well informed pursuit of recreational drugs but they are generally a minority. For everyone else, their perception of choices are far different to yours. A lot of people come from circumstances where heroin is perceived as the best choice at the time.

Should we not concentrate on sorting out drugs/treatments for cancer, diabetes and the like.

I understand these people need help but it was a choice (althouugh somewhat helped by x,y & z)unlike cancer etc.

*not meaning to come across all daily mail etc.

Booze and fags have been widely documented to have a far greater economic/social costs than illicit drugs. Imagine some bar graph with long bars for booze and fags, and shorter bars for illicit drugs and the bars represent the cost...

Should we not concentrate on sorting out drugs/treatments for cancer, diabetes and the like.

So, how should this "sorting out" be done? If you know of a cheap, possibly very rewarding, yet unorthodox method of improving the lives of people afflicted with those conditions, tell us.

Or are you arguing for money to be withdrawn from substance abuse and be put into treatment for those diseases?

Booze and fags have been widely documented to have a far greater economic/social costs than illicit drugs. Imagine some bar graph with long bars for booze and fags, and shorter bars for illicit drugs and the bars represent the cost...

Yes, but are taxable, which atleast makes them appear more socially acceptable.

Yes, but are taxable, which atleast makes them appear more socially acceptable.

There was quite a bit of dialogue recently about the proposal to legalise, distribute and tax cannabis in California. I wonder if the percieved social accepabilty arising from this would have affected long term usage patterns. My guess is probably not.

So, how should this "sorting out" be done? If you know of a cheap, possibly very rewarding, yet unorthodox method of improving the lives of people afflicted with those conditions, tell us.

Or are you arguing for money to be withdrawn from substance abuse and be put into treatment for those diseases?

I have know idea, but patients in some areas are allowed certain treatments and in the next area (only a mile away) they are not. Is this the same for drug addiction?

I'm not arguing that money should be withdrawn from any thing. It just appears that drug addicts etc seem to get a lot of press etc about funding when other causes don't. Possibly sensationalism by the press?

My use of the phrase sorting out relates to all aspects of NHS funding.

Booze and fags have been widely documented to have a far greater economic/social costs than illicit drugs. Imagine some bar graph with long bars for booze and fags, and shorter bars for illicit drugs and the bars represent the cost...

Are you on something?

If illicit drugs where sold as freely as alcohol and cigarrettes then I believe the problem with drugs would be far greater then with either of the other two.

So where do you suggest diverting the limited financial resources? Towards illicit drug programs (minimisation/education/prevention/enforcement) for a relatively small population of users and relative costs, or towards cigarettes/alcohol which have massive social costs and a huge population of users. Dont make me find the graph. I'll track one down that says "per capita" for you if that helps.

There is no way that decriminalising (as distinct from legalising) heroin would result in an impact greater than cigarettes.

NB: I drink and smoke, often in irresponsible quantites. I can assure you, legal or otherwise, heroin will never enter my body.

I'm not arguing that money should be withdrawn from any thing. It just appears that drug addicts etc seem to get a lot of press etc about funding when other causes don't. Possibly sensationalism by the press?

It is hard to measure media coverage but I think that cancer and diabetes are well covered. Think about the whole story about some cancer drugs being available in Scotland but not England, which have put the NHS under pressure, about the new diabetes drugs being tested and of course the whole obesity coverage, which always lists diabetes and heart disease as a result of it.

Obviously I meant in a recreational sense.

It is hard to measure media coverage but I think that cancer and diabetes are well covered. Think about the whole story about some cancer drugs being available in Scotland but not England, which have put the NHS under pressure, about the new diabetes drugs being tested and of course the whole obesity coverage, which always lists diabetes and heart disease as a result of it.

Ther are many types of cancer and levels of diabetes that are not brought about by lifestyle choice. My wife is a type 1 diabetic she was born with it. Her parents had to buy syringes until the mid 80's where as drug addicts had been getting them for free from the late 70's, does this seem fair?

Cancer treatments vary from county to county, to determine whether some one gets one type of treatment or another based on their post code is shocking.

I'm all for helping anyone who needs it whatever their circumstances, I just feel that things are done arse about face.

• goes of to buy beret, in preperation for the revolution.*
  

I have know idea, but patients in some areas are allowed certain treatments and in the next area (only a mile away) they are not. Is this the same for drug addiction?

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.

nobody's saying the NHS is perfect, but that's not an argument for avoiding (probably-) effective (both in terms of cost and other benefits) harm-reduction strategies for heroin addiction. surely that would be counter-productive. it's not a zero-sum game: stopping trials of medical heroin wouldn't change the cancer treatment postcode lottery, for example.

there is an argument for improving the administration of the NHS to make it fairer and more efficient, but that's orthogonal to the debate about whether we should be prescribing heroin to addicts.

Thats the problem. The issues are NOT discrete, they are linked because the policy decisions are driven by a budget.

Yes it is the same. Drug treatment programmes vary wildly across the whole of the country... /SNIP/ 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.

• infinity, if i could ever work out how to insert the symbol.
  

∞ you can borrow mine...

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.

That answers that then.

I don't read the mail or the sun.

Sorry, I slipped into a bit of liberal rage there.

arf. Most substance misuse provision across the country is erratic and inconsistent, according to the budgeting / PCT / local government slant. There's massive inconsistencies on a country level too. Scotland's way ahead on the alcohol sector for a start.

In fact, you're probably better off being a young teenager heavy drinker / substance misuser on the Isle of Man cos its used in so many pilot projects.

There was a scheme a couple of years ago in Afghanistan to manufacture clinical quality morphine and to take the production line away from the taliban. Until the area became too unstable again.

#paging platini#

arf. Most substance misuse provision across the country is erratic and inconsistent, according to the budgeting / PCT / local government slant. There's massive inconsistencies on a country level too. Scotland's way ahead on the alcohol sector for a start.

**In fact, you're probably better off being a young teenager heavy drinker / substance misuser on the Isle of Man cos its used in so many pilot projects. **

There was a scheme a couple of years ago in Afghanistan to manufacture clinical quality morphine and to take the production line away from the taliban. Until the area became too unstable again.

#paging platini#

Not any more. Reciprocal agreement runs out in 2010 just like it has done in the Channel Islands this year.

I'm glad (wrong word) that the NHS is consistantly shit with its policies throughout all regions.

As all decissions have to be made based on budgetry requirements, would it not be of more benefit (for all) to address these issues first. Knock on effect.

TSK = No worries, tis the web sir and nothing written on it is personal. Unless you are James Martin (chef/Cunt).

Are you on something?

If illicit drugs where sold as freely as alcohol and cigarrettes then I believe the problem with drugs would be far greater then with either of the other two.

Anyone who believes this only needs to take a look at the number of people smoking cigarettes nowadays compared with the number of people smoking them, say, 70 years ago. Back then almost every adult smoked. Nowadays most adults do not.

Because cigarettes are legal, controlled both in quality and supply, and heavily taxed the government has been able to influence their use. Users have contributed to the economy and to society. There is no real black market for tobacco. No-one loses their job because they smoke. Nobody is incapable of doing their job because they are addicted to nicotine. These are all functions of legality.

Compare this with Heroin, which was perfectly legal 70 or so years ago, and who's addicts numbered in the hundreds, if that. How many addicts are there today, and how much do they cost us. And exactly how much control does the government have over any of it?

And this argument is based on a fallacy that Heroin isn't freely available already. It's one phone call away. We all know someone who knows someone. Anyone who smokes dope gets it from somewhere, and chances are the that somewhere up the supply chain one supplier can hook you up with smack if you want it.

I've had Heroin. It was fucking marvellous. Really. It was utterly and unreservedly wonderful. I didn't get addicted and it caused me no health problems at all. I didn't lose my job or face criminal charges. I didn't go out burgling either, because it was free, pure, clean and supplied by the NHS. I got mine in an operating theatre in the Royal London Hospital. And I have never wanted any more.

Ther are many types of cancer and levels of diabetes that are not brought about by lifestyle choice

The vast majority of diabetes is lifestyle induced. Type I isn't as its an autoimmune disorder. But type II is lifestyle sensitive. Its also a giagantic hole into which we all pour money as people refuse to accept responsibility for themselves.