Heroin on Prescription

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Tastytoggle, Apr 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Moving on from the sterilization of drug addicts topic - Dr Peter Carter, General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing has said that giving heroin on the NHS would drive down crime. I don't have a link.

    My view, we cannot control drug abuse in this country. Even with our troops in Afghanistan, the war on drugs isn't fought with sufficient vigour and is proving to be a losing battle. Heroin addiction is just awful. (Incidentally, a military themed book available online by author Mark Frankland, entitled "The Cull" and probing the heroin trade is an excellent read.) The heroin related crime and distress in the UK is deeply upsetting. Consequently, I think Dr Carter is correct. Make it available and unprofitable. We're not winning the battle against it now and we don't have the determination to demonstrate the ruthlessness that would go far in eradicating its importation and distribution. This idea offers something different.
     
  2. What have British troops in Afghanistan got to do with heroin? The military are not there to prevent the growing of poppies.
     
  3. No, but isn't that one of the government's soundbites - bringing stability to Afghanistan to help control heroin production and its availability on the streets of Britain?
     
  4. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    The idea would turn criminal scumbags into (potentially) contributing members of society, drop crime rates throuh the floor, free up Rozzers to concentrate on what they would want to and save us all a fortune in useless 'Counsellors'. Many senior Rozzers will agree with this view.

    But the Sun would scream and stamp its foot so it'll probabally never happen. Just another example of ball-less politicians who rule not by common sense or professional advice, but by fear of a Sun headline.
     
  5. I haven't heard of it if it is.
     
  6. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Regan quoted Afghanistan as a player when he declared 'War On Drugs'. No US authority (in Washington at least, although there are many dissenting voices out in the country) has admitted this War On Drugs is bollocks. The US dragged us into the war. Our troops went. Our military may not be cutting poppies, but the War On Drugs is a direct causal link to our presence there.
     
  7. Heard a consultant psychiatrist talking about this on telly. He was deeply opposed to the routine prescribing of heroin to addicts. He said most develop an increasing tolerance to the drug. Hence GPs would need to prescribe higher and higher doses for these people if withdrawal and a return to criminal dealers was to be avoided.

    Eventually, a fatal dose would be required. No doctor would prescribe a dose of heroin that was likely to kill a patient.

    Having said that, isn't there some scheme for prescribing heroin to people who can show that they wont develop a tolerance?

    Regarding the comments about saving money, some Home Office research a few years ago showed that the average junkie at large costs the state £60k a year. Some of that is related to crime but much of it relates to the cost of taking kids into care and medical treatment. I think if addicts were seeing a doctor every day for their fix, costs could only increase.
     
  8. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Sorry Aincient, but your consultant is talking bus tickets. There will be a proportion of junkies who want to get high(er) so will up their dose till they OD and die. Give my love to Jesus.

    Far more have sunk into addiction and just want to live a normal life, maybe (SHOCK HORROR) bring up their kids. Give them a measured amount, and a little support, and they will stop blipping our radar.

    The problem with the whole drugs debate, is 'experts' who havent got a Scoobie how the job works in the real world.
     
  9. And then we would encourage more people to do it because the state will pay. If we want to give them a normal life get them off skag.
     
  10. The ridiculous "War on Drugs" can't be won. It's as simple as that! The secretly projected gobment goal of reducing the consumption of drugs to zero is palpably unattainable. They've been at it now for nigh on 70 years and still made no discernible dent in the steady rise of folks who take drugs. During that time they've been letting off the same slogans and advocating the same things, but nothing, essentially, has changed.

    It all boils down to the basic "Christian" attitude that only god and religion will help you through life, which you have to dedicate to this god and forsake all manner of "temptations, and all the rest is bullshit. But times have changed - radically.

    Nobody places much store in this god-person anymore, and they feel they're entitled to shuck back and forget about the rat-race they're forced to take part in. So they take drugs.

    I'd tend to disagree with the part in your post which says that: "Heroin addiction is awful". It's not! Booting in on smack is one of the wonders of the age. It's small wonder that there are so many in the world who do the same.

    MsG
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  11. The consultant's claims have no evidence to back them up. Heroin is no different from methadone in that sense and his fear is not borne out by the RIOTT study or the experience of other countries who have headed down this road. Methadone is simply a nasty chemical version of diamorphine that's actually harder to detox from. Heroin is relatively easy, certainly in comparison to alcohol, just a few days of feeling vile with no dangers to health.

    Addicts wouldn't be seeing a doctor, they'd be seeing the same drug workers who they currently see to get and supervise their methadone prescription. These tend to be a mix of psych nurses and social workers, but not GPs.

    The first line use of diamorphine is a long way off, but the results of the RIOTT project mean that it's (hopefully) likely to be adopted for the very chaotic group of users who top up their methadone with street heroin.
     
  12. Also keep in mind the H users everyone assumes are the down and outs and thieves, this is only a very small percentage of users. The vast majority are 'normal' people, do have a job, from administrators to judges, and don't forget possibly the worst drug abusers... Doctors.
    Most of these can support their habbit, but I would think they would much prefer to have known clean H.

    One ex-addict I know (gave up in the late 70's), worked all the time he was on it, and is now very senior a Rolls Royce. He agrees with the above, bad flu like feeling for a couple of weeks, but the worst bit is the plane fact that life can feel a bit sh1t without the fog of an H high.
     
  13. Illegal drug addiction costs in all sorts of ways. It's illegal and therefore druggies should be compusorily treated and dealers hung. Works for Singapore so will someone give a sensible reason why it would not work in here in the UK?
     
  14. It reduced the the number of addicts but Singapore had a problem that dwarfs ours. Malaysia has gone down the same route and has now started to get a rising addicted population, after several years of decline.

    The only other country to show a significant drop in addicts over the same time is Holland, and they have the opposite approach,
     
  15. Its illegality is completely arbitrary, as is the illegality of other drugs. You seem also to belong to the "just ban it" crowd. However, over 70 years of such a ban have made no inroads at all into the number of folks who prefer it. So why should they have to take a break from life with alcohol, when smack's available and causes no physical harm whatsoever - something that can't be claimed for alk.

    In a society in which citizens are free to make so many individual choices with regard to their own lives, you can't place unfounded and irrational restrictions on the bandwidth of choice available, just because you don't like certain things. That's not what democracy's about.

    MsG
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.