Should a drug addict be given a regular fix by the NHS?

jambutty · 22-11-2006, 23:54

The assistant chief constable of the Nottinghamshire force has come up with a radical idea.

He suggests that drug addicts should receive their daily fix from the NHS, although he specifically mentioned heroin. Some areas already do this where the addicts are given the required dose and watched by a nurse or doctor as they inject themselves. It was reported that drug related crime in those areas has been reduced substantially.

Let us look at this suggestion with a cold and clinical outlook and keep emotion out of the equation.

The war on drug addiction has been fought for more than 30 years and the situation is worse today than it was 30 years ago. So the battle has not been effective and it is time to try a different approach.

It has been claimed that an addict needs about £45,000 per year to feed his/her habit whereas supplying the drug would cost the NHS around £12,000. That £45,000 comes from burglaries and muggings. In other words from us. The £12,000 comes from our taxes.

If an addict were able to get his/her fix from a legitimate source for free s/he would not have a reason to commit crime to get the money to pay for the drug. This in turn would put a huge hole in the dealers’ earnings and probably drive them out of business. That can only be a good thing.

Now I wonder who is going to be the first to broach the stupid retort of “let’s give burglars household goods so they won’t have to go thieving” or “let’s supply paedophiles with children to prevent them from attacking kids”?

This issue is about drug addicts and how to counter them and the crimes that they commit to feed the habit in the most cost effective way.

WillowTheWhisp · 23-11-2006, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

If an addict were able to get his/her fix from a legitimate source for free s/he would not have a reason to commit crime to get the money to pay for the drug. This in turn would put a huge hole in the dealers’ earnings and probably drive them out of business. That can only be a good thing.

.

OR

The dealer, having lost some of his regulars will be lookng to recruit more to make up for lost income and thus put more kids in danger from pushers.

grannyclaret · 23-11-2006, 00:04

No................................................ .......

cashman · 23-11-2006, 00:11

in a word NO.

chav1 · 23-11-2006, 00:41

drug adicts should be given 1 chance to clean their act up then left to die if they start again

sory but no one forces anyone to put a needle in tehir arm or whatever method they use and its their own bloody fault

i am willing to comprimise if they pay tax on their drugs but they dont

garinda · 23-11-2006, 01:14

Apparently some GP's already supply clinical heroin Diamorphine, rather than Methadone, to long term addicts, and crime in those areas has decreased.

I can see both sides of the arguments, but under prohibition history has shown us that drugs like prostitution don't just go away, they are just swept under the carpet, and in the long term create more problems for society in general than if they were legalised.

That said, giving addicts heroin in the long term, without making them want to try and rehabilitate, does make it look like a reward. Especially as in parts of the country women whose chances of beating breast cancer if they receive treatment early, are being denied drugs because some health authorities say they can't afford it.

Too difficult a question. I'm abstaining.

LancYorkYankee · 23-11-2006, 01:41

NO. That's my first and probably 2nd, 3rd, and 4th answer. Any repeat offended gets very long jail time!

However, to show a gentler side: How bout the State offer those "addicts" that get caught breaking the law one and only one chance to "get clean." The State then pays for ~30 days of confinement, counsellings, anti-drug drugs, etc. All this should be through Cold Turkey.

Once released, heck the State can even supply the former addict a temp. job to get his confidence back and all. Dag, I sound like a liberal but I'm just trying to offer another way. Like jambutty says other ways haven't seemed to work very well.

Over here in my area its crystal meth. that is really destroying people. Supposedly one of the most addictive drugs. These addicts will do absolutely anything to get their next fix. Very sad!

Brian

grannyclaret · 23-11-2006, 02:06

How about giving the pushers a free needle.....A LETHAL ONE.....

steve · 23-11-2006, 07:49

nice one grannyclaret.

WillowTheWhisp · 23-11-2006, 07:58

I don't mind the idea of treating people to help them get off drugs but the NHS helping them to stay ON drugs just sounds all wrong. Like Granny (indirectly) says the real problems are the pushers and suppliers but we don't seem to be able to stop that.

I can see Garinda's point about prohibition but can't think of heroine along the same lines as a bottle of beer even though I don't drink.

entwisi · 23-11-2006, 08:31

Mmm, my 2p on this

initially I thought, good idea, after all we currently spend more on trying to stop drugs arriving in this country than it would cost to buy up teh whole Afgan opium crop(Which is where I believe over 95% of UK heroin comes from). Then as mentioned there is the cost of goods etc that are stolen to fund habits(including rising Insurance premiums) and also the cost of investigating/policing these crimes. We all winge that there aren't enough Police on the beat, remove the overhead of dealing with results of drug crime and we will probably be able to have a copper on every street corner. Then there is the matter of injuries/deaths caused during muggings etc by drug addicts looking to fund their next fix. Try telling a grieving widow that her husband died because we aren't prepared to give addicts their fix for free.

There has long been calls to legalise and monitor prostitution, the advantages are always mentioned of cleaning up the industry, protecting the girls/boys from violence/slavery, taxing the income(

) but the whole focus seems to be on making it a safer environment for all parties, By setting up safe environments for drug use would it encourage new users? I doubt it. I'm sure some people start using drugs because of the 'look at me I'm a rebel' rather than any actual desire to become a junkie, its just that they get caught up in teh chemical dependancy. Legalising it removes that appeal. As for pushers looking for new trade, I don't think that would happen, people are either going to do it or they aren't. even if ther was a small increase initially the supply(non users who may be tempted) is not inexhaustable and like a pyramid scam,would soon run out.

However on the flip side it does seem a strange way of dealing with the problem. making it freeley available alongside free extensive rehabilitation may be an answer. Difficult one to choose really but I think the pro's outweigh the cons to me, I'm a yes

WillowTheWhisp · 23-11-2006, 11:26

I can see the upside when it comes to avoiding crime but why not get them off the drug rather than supply it for free?

entwisi · 23-11-2006, 12:00

Because you are leaving the underlying infrastructure(pushers etc) there for them to fall back into their old ways/re-offend. Giving the stuff away in safe controlled enviroments removes the infrastucture as there is no money there to pay for it. Whats the point of selling something that there is no market for anymore.

I commented that we should offer them rehab. I believe that there is no point in 'forcing' people through rehab as they need to admit their problem and want to deal with it before it can be of any use. Just like alcoholics need to admit their problem before they can be helped.

grego · 23-11-2006, 12:04

I voted No, though I do think we should help those who want to be helped and eventually weaned off the drug.

jambutty · 23-11-2006, 13:07

Alcohol is just as much an addictive drug as hard drugs WillowTheWhisp. It just takes longer and more of it as any alcoholic would testify to, if they were able.

If our police force were, as is often stated, the best in the world, the pushers and dealers would all be languishing in jail. But the reality is that pushers and dealers ply their trade with as close to impunity as you can get.

The way to solve the drug problem is two fold. Destroy the pushers and dealers market, which is not happening. Stop the pushers and dealers from getting a supply, which happens from time to time. Although those in the know reckon that barely 10% is intercepted.

I doubt very much if an ordinary non-drug using person wakes up one morning with the thought in mind that later that day they will shoot up with heroin. Most if not all will fall into the drug habit by accident or coercion and that makes them as much a victim as the owner of a house that is burgled.

As entwisi has stated a drug addict cannot be forced off the drug, s/he has to want to do it and thus s/he will need help. Thus the issue of drugs should come with counselling and positive help in getting off the drug. As for those that do not want to come off drug addiction, are we just going to go on letting them commit crimes to feed their habit, or are we going to give them their fix and thus remove the need to rob? And at the same time destroy the pushers and dealers market.

In parallel with this philosophy we need to EDUCATE the young of the dangers of addiction with seriously explicit films and lectures. Frighten them into seeing the reality of drug taking.

As I understand it, Afghanistan is the world’s major supplier of opium and pharmaceutical companies buy some of it legitimately to produce it’s by products for legitimate medical use. The Afghan farmers are being encouraged and helped to grow other crops but sadly the world trade is such that they do not get a fair price for their new crops so they revert back to poppies where they know that they can make a decent living. Of course some are bullied by the drug barons into growing poppies rather than other crops but that is the power of the drug barons.

If the World Bank would buy ALL the opium product at a guaranteed price of at least 20% above what the drug barons would pay then surely the farmers would go along with that. Would you sell your wares for £100 when you could get £120 or more from someone else? In order to prevent the drug barons from fighting back and intimidating the farmers it would need the UN to offer them protection until an Afghan army could do the job. The upshot of this would be to deny the drug barons a source of illegal drugs, the farmers would make a decent living and Afghanistan as a whole would benefit.

With no supply and no market the illegal drugs industry would hopefully collapse.

There is also another plus side to controlling the illegal drugs industry and that is no more syringes discarded where kids can find them.

Anyone who has ever bought a cheap something from a guy on the street or in the pub is as much a part of the problem as the dealer and addict. If, and it is a BIG IF, if the general public refused to buy that dirt cheap telly, or whatever, the junkie would not be able to sell it.

One final point. This idea of giving drug users heroin on the NHS is currently being trailed in London and a couple of other places and so far the results are very encouraging. In that crime is down in those areas and some addicts are seeing the error of their ways and taking positive steps to get off drugs.