Make all drugs legal

[Keith Whittaker]

I'm pretty sure that it was in Switzerland, a couple of years ago where they opened up government sponsered 'shooting galleries'. The addict would arrive, be given clean, unadulterated, heroin and a sterile needle and allowed to inject themselves before going about their day. Over a remarkably short period, the street availability of heroin dryed up as individuals no longer needed to deal to fund their own supply, crime rates dropped for much the same reason and the average age of heroin addicts climbed from 20-something to 30-something as fewer new addicts were created. Seems like a win win situation to me, but I can't see any country stuck in the 'punitive' mindset going for it.

[DVR]

That does sound like a great idea, and its proven to work, I cant see any british government putting it in place though.

[nigelH]

Originally Posted by Keith Whittaker

I'm pretty sure that it was in Switzerland, a couple of years ago where they opened up government sponsered 'shooting galleries'.

I don't have to like the idea of handing out drugs like that to see that is could save both lives and money. Transforming addicts from criminals into patients firstly makes them accessible to proper health care and then also removes the incentive to crime. Plus we also cut away the primary funding for bigger crime and the incentive to get people addicted in the first place.

I don't like the idea of anything that makes getting onto drugs easier but realism says when it is to late we have to deal with the problem. The real difficulty would be well meaning people making these into 'cure' operations rather than supply. When you want to be cured we can help but we can wait until you are ready.

[AM1]

Originally Posted by DVR

Almost all of the hard drug users I know have gone down the same path, some of them had very good jobs etc, they all " could handle it" and "stop anytime they wanted" but they couldnt , and whats left is a person that will do anything for a fix, and if thats stealing from family or knocking a granny on the head than thats what they do.

I think legalising all drugs is the way forward to cut crime. Heroin addicts rob from grannies and steal cars because they cannot get access to timely and effective drug rehabilitation even when they desperately want to stop. If heroin was legalised and instead of being given methadone, addicts were given legal, safely produced heroin, it would slash the drug crime in this country. Heroin is actually an extremely cheap drug to produce, compared to the costs of crime and overcrowded prisons. Then we could get these people back to living a constructive life again.

Originally Posted by nickb

But they do these things BECAUSE the drugs they use are illegal.

No, they do it because they are desperate and in withdrawal, which would not happen if Diamorphine was readily available on script for addicts but with a view to getting them onto drug rehabilitation programmes.

Originally Posted by nickb

Pharmaceutical diamorphine (heroin) does little damage to the body and users can live perfectly normal lives. What does the damage is the crap that street smack gets cut with and the scumbags that addicts have to do business with in order to satisfy their addiction.

That's completely incorrect - diamorphine causes cognitive impairment with long term use, as well as various organ damage and a whole range of debilitating side effects, same as all opioids. It's brain rotting stuff alright. Which is why if it was legalised for addiction, all addicts should be placed onto rehabilitation programmes. The only reason many addicts keep taking it is because they cannot manage withdrawal on their own and they have to wait (in some areas) for years to get onto supervised detoxification. The Government recognised this some time ago and put in place a target of two weeks from an addict asking for medical help to them going onto detox but the resources are not there, hence robbing and other criminal activities continue.

Originally Posted by DVR

Again I agree with you, but how do you go about it, legalise everything so they can shoot up in public without getting nicked, so they can sit outside your house or mine and leave dirty needles by your gate? There are those that want help and there are those that have no intention of getting any form of help, I feel very sorry for the former but dont want the latter anywhere near my my house, my kids or my grandkids.

This is all conjecture borne out of lack of understanding. If certain drugs were legalised and administered in a controlled fashion in conjunction with a longer term goal of drug rehabilitation, the days of seeing junkies hitting up in public would be long gone.

Originally Posted by DVR

As a ps: with the government refusing to treat , smokers, alchaholics and the obese as they are self inflicted , do you really think they will do anything for drug addicts.

Drug addiction causes severe physical dependence and requires medical supervision to facilitate SAFE detoxification. This is a cheaper and much preferable option than the current climate of drug-related crimes. The tax payer is already paying for the drug problem through crime, overcrowded prisons, judicial/punitive systems, violence/overdoses/medical treatment.

[DVR]

This is all conjecture borne out of lack of understanding. If certain drugs were legalised and administered in a controlled fashion in conjunction with a longer term goal of drug rehabilitation, the days of seeing junkies hitting up in public would be long gone.

If what you say is correct and I have a lack of understanding, why do I see the local junkies taking methadone outside the chemist, then shooting up around the corner? the methadone they get doesnt give them the hit they need. would you condone giving them as much as they want? should smokers and alchaholics be given the "drugs" they need? no one forces anyone to take drugs, I think the ones who want to get off should be given all the help they need, but if you think they will all be queing up to get clean you need to take the rose tinted glasses off.

[AM1]

Methadone does not work the same way as heroin, which is why it is not an adequate replacement. Smoking and alcohol do not give rise to physical dependence and are not opioid based drugs with deadly implications of stopping them cold. No matter how bad these people's behaviour is through drug seeking behaviour or how much we condemn them in our ivory towers, the ones who genuinely want help should get it - physical drug dependence is a medical problem, psychological drug addiction is a social problem: the two are entirely different entities.

You need to read my post again - I said that prescribed heroin should only be given on the condition that a rehabilitation programme is implemented within a specific timeframe with a proper multi-disciplinary approach. Using methadone to manage heroin addiction has a low success rate, there are plenty of other, more successful, proven methods but they cost money, methadone is very cheap.

As for no one forces anyone to take drugs - again, completely wrong. The Government and it's medical quangos made a joint commercial decision to licence certain cheap drugs for certain conditions, in substition for proper (expensive) rehabilitation, leaving millions of people to become dependent on prescription medications, i.e. stroke patients, pain, cardiac etc.

Street drug addicts can and do regularly ask for help but do not get it, there are reforms in place to rectify this. No one forces anyone to take drugs but once they're on it, they're on it and you and me are funding the consequences LONG TERM. As for queuing up to get clean, I think you'd be surprised if the proper support infrastructure was put in place.

Even if they did not want to get clean immediately, just give them heroin on prescription, then you remove the source of drug crime and overcrowded prisons and bad quality substance overdose. Heroin is a cheap drug pharmaceutically but on the street obviously the value is different. Once addicts are in the medical setting, it will be a lot easier to discuss the rehabilitation options to get off the stuff. You can't do that if they're caught up in the hit up/come down/rob someone/go to dealer cycle.

[DVR]

You need to read my post again - I said that prescribed heroin should only be given on the condition that a rehabilitation programme is implemented within a specific timeframe with a proper multi-disciplinary approach. Using methadone to manage heroin addiction has a low success rate, there are plenty of other, more successful, proven methods but they cost money, methadone is very cheap.


[COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]I agree, my point is that only a small amount of drug users would want that help.
[/color]As for no one forces anyone to take drugs - again, completely wrong. The Government and it's medical quangos made a joint commercial decision to licence certain cheap drugs for certain conditions, in substition for proper (expensive) rehabilitation, leaving millions of people to become dependent on prescription medications, i.e. stroke patients, pain, cardiac etc.


[COLOR="mediumturquoise"]I was not talking about prescribed drugs.
[/color]Street drug addicts can and do regularly ask for help but do not get it, there are reforms in place to rectify this. No one forces anyone to take drugs but once they're on it, they're on it and you and me are funding the consequences LONG TERM. As for queuing up to get clean, I think you'd be surprised if the proper support infrastructure was put in place.

[COLOR="mediumturquoise"]As I said , these people should get the help they need
[/color]Even if they did not want to get clean immediately, just give them heroin on prescription, then you remove the source of drug crime and overcrowded prisons and bad quality substance overdose. Heroin is a cheap drug pharmaceutically but on the street obviously the value is different. Once addicts are in the medical setting, it will be a lot easier to discuss the rehabilitation options to get off the stuff. You can't do that if they're caught up in the hit up/come down/rob someone/go to dealer cycle.[/quote]

[COLOR="mediumturquoise"]So you give it to them on prescription, do they have to take it in a contolled enviroment or can they take a weeks supply home, where they can get someone else hooked?

Please don't think I'm having a go at you, I agree something needs to be done, I just dont think this is it as it sends out the wrong message to the up and comming teenagers.[/color]

[AM1]

Hiya, that colour scheme is a bit crazy!

I know you're not having a go, just a healthy debate.

The infrastructure in which to implement a scheme like this is crucial to it's success, so your questions about environmental control are well placed.

What you need to understand is that Methadone has a 36 hour action and is prescribed within the controlled drug guidelines, which means that a maximum of 14 days dosage is put on the script then lodged at the pharmacy. The user then has to visit that pharmacy daily for Methadone. Heroin has a different action, this is down to different agonist/antagonist properties in the chemical components of these drugs.

I agree that these drugs should probably not be given on a "take away" basis, the potential for abuse is considerable. But the implications of removing the drug dealer out of the equation are also considerable.

On the issue of drug rehabilitation, there are drugs available that can facilitate rapid heroin detoxification without massive withdrawal but these cost relatively large amounts of money as opposed to Methadone. A bottle of Methadone can cost as little as £5 to produce.

But if the long term financial analysis and return on investment was done properly, the overall financial and social return on paying for proper detoxification is significant. If you take addicts off heroin in the right manner and get them back to constructive lifes, the burden of paying for crime, court cases and imprisonment disappears AND they may well become taxpayers. But they must really want to do it and part of that is getting them into the medical system in the first place and exploring the rehabilitation options. That generally doesn't happen in the current system because of the hit up/come down/rob someone/go to dealer repeating cycle AND the knowledge that they will have to do cold turkey.

A large component of drug dependence (not psychological addiction) is the fear of the physical withdrawal and this is what perpetuates the drug cycle most commonly, so getting these people into the medical setting is the first step in breaking the drug-related crime cycle down. The first stage, that of prescribing legal heroin, immediately removes the need for drug-seeking behaviours and criminal activities to fund drug dependence.

[yazzyfooty]

Originally Posted by nickb

Coke users don't tend to be the ones that break into your house to nick your DVD player though. If those idiots want to keep on shoving the marching powder up their noses they're welcome to it.

Ideally we would be educating our kids to stay well away from drugs, but that's not happening and to consign them to a life of burglary, robbery or prostitution makes all our lives that little bit worse.

If someone makes a mistake crossing the road or, closer to home here, whilst diving, the NHS steps in and does what it can to make things better. Most of us would applaud that. Why can't we have the same compassion for those that fuck up due to the pressure of their mates or a drug dealer?

More methadone clinics, more substance abuse clinics/workers and more psychiatric hospitals to deal with those that are unfortunate who cannot cope with 1) their drugs use 2) the stress of worrying to get their next deal 3) to deal with the mental illness that a large proportion have or will get due to drug/substance abuse. All on the NHS and when they can no longer deal with the numbers, then the likes of who I work for build hospitals and charge the NHS even more ££££££££££££££££.

[AM1]

I'd rather pay to get people back to productive lifestyles than fund sex change operations and plastic surgery!