UK government gives out free heroin

[Sir Bandelot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8255418.stm

A scheme in which heroin is given to addicts in supervised clinics has led to big reductions in the use of street drugs and crime, the BBC has learned.

About three-quarters of those given heroin were said to have "substantially" reduced their use of street drugs.

Research suggests that between half and two-thirds of all crime in the UK is drug-related.

The Home Office says on its website that about three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habits.

Those on the programme were also given psychological support and help with their housing and social needs.

There was also a big drop in the number of offences addicts admitted committing to obtain money to feed their habit.

The NTA said an independent expert group, set up to advise the government, had concluded that there was enough "positive evidence of the benefits" of the programme to merit further pilots.

At £15,000 per user per year, supervised heroin injecting is three times more expensive than other treatments.

---

Still cheaper than jail.

I approve of this approach to the drug problem. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce usage levels and created a lot more violence, and imprisoned users whose only crime was their chemical addiction.

Now don't get me wrong, if somebody commits a crime such as theft to support their habit, they should be punished according to law. I'm talking about the use of drugs itself... drug addiction. Yes they are a problem to society, yes you could say they are pathetic. But so are alcoholics. Tobacco addicts also present a burden, they pose some harm to others with second hand smoke as well as cost the health care system when they get emphysema and cancer. We do not view them as criminals, and rightly so.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[PocketRocket]

Interesting post. I'm not sure I agree with perpetuating someone's self-destructive habit by supplying him with an addictive narcotic.

OTOH, if it's reducing crimes these people are committing on innocent outsiders, it has at least one upside.

I would be happier seeing an ongoing treatment program wherein they are given incrementally smaller doses of heroin, perhaps mixed with something else to eventually get them off the heroin altogether. (Sorry, but I don't recall the name of the drug that's often used in treating heroin addicts)

[Guest TrueMetis]

Interesting post. I'm not sure I agree with perpetuating someone's self-destructive habit by supplying him with an addictive narcotic.

OTOH, if it's reducing crimes these people are committing on innocent outsiders, it has at least one upside.

I would be happier seeing an ongoing treatment program wherein they are given incrementally smaller doses of heroin, perhaps mixed with something else to eventually get them off the heroin altogether. (Sorry, but I don't recall the name of the drug that's often used in treating heroin addicts)

They might start doing that but this is a good first step because it will limit OD's, crimes and the spread of diseases.

[eyeball]

The NTA said an independent expert group, set up to advise the government, had concluded that there was enough "positive evidence of the benefits" of the programme to merit further pilots.

They better get on with expanding this sooner rather than later. The biggest problem with these pilot programs anywhere they've been tried in North America is that they become magnets for addicts and a hot spot for trouble as more and more addicts are attracted to it.

This problem is similarily mirrored by the development of homelessness hot spots in the downtown cores of larger cities. NIMBYISM inevitably sets in when authorities propose drug clinics, homeless shelters or assisted living facilities for mentally ill people in smaller towns and other neighbourhoods throughout cities. Politicians just as inevitably cave in to NIMBYISM and before you know it they're pointing at the pilot projects and asking constituents, "do you want this to happen in your neighbourhood"? I've grappled with this first hand in my own community and while I applaud the British for starting down this road I'm not holding my breath in the hopes that they'll get very far. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Unfortunately for the mentally ill the main thing that drives them out of their own towns and home communities and into the anonymity of the cities is the stigma they feel from neighbours and even their own families. Of course many of these become addicts. The best news I've heard coming out of Ottawa in a long time is a plan to start educating Canadians about mental illness with a view to lessening this stigma.

Edited October 15, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

A long term assisted suicide programme.

Be cheaper if they turned it into a short term programme.

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball,

Has anyone suggested an approach whereby people in this program are kept under more strict control ? It appears to me that having the affliction of drug addiction requires you to be pretty much constantly supervised.

[GostHacked]

A long term assisted suicide programme.

Be cheaper if they turned it into a short term programme.

That is what killed my uncle at the young age of 19 a couple decades ago. His addiction did turn to crime and he could not be helped. Me and my Oma came home one dayhe soon OD'd and died. This kind of program could have changed his life. I am constantly reminded of him because, to the rest of my family, I look and act a lot like him (before he went sour). I never got to know him at all.

[DogOnPorch]

The RCMP arrested one of this city's main heroin dealers a few years back but quickly released him after all the junkies started going loopy. They were camped out in the bushes near his house waiting for his return to business, causing all sorts of trouble. I guess some judge figured the city was better off with happy junkies rather than unhappy ones.

[eyeball]

eyeball,

Has anyone suggested an approach whereby people in this program are kept under more strict control ? It appears to me that having the affliction of drug addiction requires you to be pretty much constantly supervised.

I think this would only underscore and sustain the stigma that afflicted people feel and many would never put up with it. Its why so many homeless people refuse to go to shelters, they can't stand the urge of authorities to control as many aspects of their life as they can. How would you feel if you were required to get a doctors approval before you could use alcohol?

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball,

If I was a hopeless alcoholic who couldn't do anything about it, I might welcome it. To a certain degree, an addict gives up on a normal life and chooses his substance as his life.

The government seems to have arbitrary perspectives on certain types of vices - gambling, sex, tobacco, drugs and alcohol. For some of them, they tolerate it, for some they legalize it and tax it, and for others they ban it. All of these vices are negative types of escapism, IMO, and should be cautiously managed, with a realistic general welfare being the guideline.

[eyeball]

eyeball,

If I was a hopeless alcoholic who couldn't do anything about it, I might welcome it. To a certain degree, an addict gives up on a normal life and chooses his substance as his life.

That's the bueaty of a non-judgemental system, if you want help its there. OTOH if you just want to get high without all the moralistic bullshit you can do that too.

The government seems to have arbitrary perspectives on certain types of vices - gambling, sex, tobacco, drugs and alcohol. For some of them, they tolerate it, for some they legalize it and tax it, and for others they ban it. All of these vices are negative types of escapism, IMO, and should be cautiously managed, with a realistic general welfare being the guideline.

First you have to purge the system of its arbitrainess and instill it with consistency so you can manage it in a principled manner.

I can't help but wonder if the populace would accept the prohibition of recreational mind altering substance use more readily if tobacco and alcohol were also illegal. The phrase parens patriae come to mind. Imagine the incongruity of a parent lecturing a child on the evils of doing drugs with a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other. What's the difference if a government sells drugs with one hand while busting you for doing drugs with the other?

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball,

Ban alcohol ? Tobacco ? Coffee ? Do you want to see a revolution ?

I'd prefer to create some kind of community that could work towards getting people off of these substances in the long term, and mitigate the attendant risks of that lifestyle in the short term.

[eyeball]

eyeball,

Ban alcohol ? Tobacco ? Coffee ? Do you want to see a revolution ?

I'd prefer to create some kind of community that could work towards getting people off of these substances in the long term, and mitigate the attendant risks of that lifestyle in the short term.

That would be a revolution compared to what we've seen.

[Mr.Canada]

This is the beginning of what I said will occur in the near future. Totally legal street drugs and this is but the first step, a trial run to see how it would be. The governments of this world want to control its people through any means necessary even if that means killing them slowly. They want the people docile and easily controlled with little means to fight back against it.

[Michael Hardner]

This is the beginning of what I said will occur in the near future. Totally legal street drugs and this is but the first step, a trial run to see how it would be. The governments of this world want to control its people through any means necessary even if that means killing them slowly. They want the people docile and easily controlled with little means to fight back against it.

MC,

There's nothing to suggest the government wants to kill its people. This is science fiction you have in your mind right now.