calnetalk.com

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2845 Status:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...t_contributors/article4029367.ece
What do you think?

Geddi · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

Prescribing methadone to heroin addicts is not ideal. Automatically making heroin addicts into criminals is not ideal either. The money spent on criminalising heroin and other illegal drug use, as well as dishing out methadone on prescription twice or more per day to registered addicts, is a very large sum. It is grossly larger than the total amount spent on prevention and education and rehabilitating treatments.

To stop the supply of methadone abruptly with nothing else in place would cause more problems than it resolves. To keep on indefinitely handing it out is not resolving the issues of WHY people turn to heroin in the first place. It is hardly a recreational drug.

There are addicts who take the methadone as well as heroin. There are others who sell the methadone to buy heroin. There are others who religiously take the methadone and no more heroin but get hooked on the methadone.

Just to be clear - the article tries to draw parallels between heroin abuse and burglary. This is utter nonsense and political word-mongering, nothing more. To take heroin is something an addict does to themselves. Burglary is ALWAYS done to someone else. It is impossible to burgle yourself. Hence there is no comparison to be made in this respect. POOR people who abuse heroin become criminals to fund the high cost of their habit which needs feeding up to £20 worth 4 times daily. The price has dropped steadily over the last 8 years or so, since Afghanistan was invaded and occupied.

In conclusion to the question - NO, we should not stop prescribing methadone, but we should aim at being able to do so in the future.
_________________
Democracy is dead.

Block67 · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject:

Geddi : In conclusion to the question - NO, we should not stop prescribing methadone, but we should aim at being able to do so in the future.
I do agree with this part of your debate, and to cut it out totally and abruptly would be wrong.
I still stand by what I had said previously, if the addict wants help to get clean then ok. Should they go back to the scagg, then they should be written off. Why waste time and resources allegedly helping someone to get clean when they refuse to help themselves? Roll eyes

Anyways, as for making addicts "criminals", heroin was, and still remains an illegal drug. - and I personally don't know of any addicts that have not been "criminal" in one way or the other, most do dodgy things to ensure they get their fix later.
One part of the article I do agree with totally :-
Contrary to what everyone supposes, withdrawal from heroin is not a serious medical condition - unlike, say, withdrawal from alcohol when it results in delirium tremens (the DTs). The suffering is grossly exaggerated and, in so far as it is genuine, is largely produced by anticipatory anxiety that is itself the consequence of years of mythologising the fearsomeness of withdrawal.
With regard to the "excuses" for being on heroin in the first place, no matter how, what or why, other people have had "problems", and have not turned to illegal drugs, or for that matter, drink.

Geddi · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject:

Block: Some very interesting and informed points, however there are some things which I wont let lie... People who have not resorted to 'criminal' behaviour (other than the illegal use of a proscribed substance*) include:

Pete Townsend; John Lennon; John Belushi; William Burroughs; Ray Charles; Eric Clapton; Billie Holiday; Jimi Hendrix and more. The thing which separated these people listed here from others is that all the above had wealth enough to pay for the drug on a regular basis. Hence it was not heroin which was a problem, but the poverty which accompanied it.

I've heard your arguments for having your views on another thread so I wont get into that here.

The effects of withdrawal vary from person to person, just as any drug affects people differently (I am allergic to penicillin), and the argument that a great deal of the withdrawal is down to "anticipatory anxiety that is itself the consequence of years of mythologising the fearsomeness of withdrawal" falls apart completely when considering babies who are born to heroin addicts and go into withdrawal. These symptoms can be so severe that the new born child can die as a result. How does this differ from an adults reaction?

While alcohol has an effect in withdrawal and can certainly do more lasting damage to the body, heroin also has. I have not been through a heroin withdrawal so I can not pass comment personally, except for anecdotally from people I have spoken with who have been through it, so I will refrain.

Suffice it to say that UK drug policy needs an overhaul.
_________________
Democracy is dead.

Block67 · Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:00 am Post subject:

Geddi, I used to mix in the wrong circles some years back :oops: , and I beg to differ on some of what you are saying.
During my single and stupid days, I was working 80+ hours a week, and getting wasted on what was left of my weekend. I took all kinds of recreational substances, but drew the line at injecting. Looking back at everything that I had done and used, if I was a weak willed idiot and liked what I was doing, then I would of become an addict. I found that none of the drugs I was taking at that time were addictive to me, despite having numerous problems at the time, it was merely the same as going out to have a drink, but illegal. Why did I do this, simply because of the so called social circle that I was mixing with. Even when I was of my face, the people I was with were, basically, useless, most didn't have jobs to fund their habit, nearly all were spongers, and their excuses for being jobless, and hooked on various drugs were pathetic. The majority were simply lazy b*stards who just wanted to"enjoy" themselves by not working and doing drugs.
Did I suffer any withdrawl, no. Why?
Because I am a workaholic (which is crippling me at the moment as I cannot work due to illness) and still had a life to lead, and I found none of these substances addictive. Regarding the famous people you listed and the comment about poverty accompanying the use of heroin, if they got of their lazy behinds and worked they would be able to afford their fix, but then also they might suddenly realise that life isn't so "bad" and decide to change their ways. As I previously have stated, the vast majority of junkies have done dodgy or criminal acts to help fund their habit, and at the end of the day, if they take illegal substances, then they are criminals. I always thought the law regarding drugs was straight forward. Roll eyes

Withdrawl does depend on the individual (mainly their attitude and state of mind), and with regard to this thread, methadone should be given only to those wanting to get clean, and should they fail to do so, then they should be disregarded by the state. If they can't help themselves, why should we continue to help them?????

Bear · Bentlian Oldboy Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 863 Status:

Block and Geddi this is an interesting debate and one which comes up at work all the time as I work within the criminal justice system and see at first hand the results of drug use and the connection with other criminality. I have to say you are both correct but have missed thre point that all people are different some are weak willed some are not. Some are rich and some are poor therefore their reactions when confronted with the oppourtunity to use drugs will always differ. It is important to realise that the scripting of methadone is done as a first step to get people off heroin as is not the answer to all their problems and must be done in conjunction with other things which are intended initially to reduce their criminal activity and therefore to reduce the impact of drug use on the rest of us.

Geddi · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject:

Bear: I may have been lax in my reasoning, but it is my own argument that we are all different and so it's not a viable or rational idea to simply lump all users of a substance 'we' don't like or agree with and deal with them all en masse, as it were.

I used the idea of penicillin to illustrate differences, and I could quote more if necessary. Point is, to follow your own concerning separating users from crime, to criminalise people simply for using is not a solution and creates its own problems. There are some who argue for a complete lifting of criminality of all drugs, spending the cash saved within the criminal justice system on prevention and education. I like this idea far more than continually having the supply of drugs (which we will never control or eradicate) in the hands of criminal gangs who like to cash in on the illegality and vast profits due to the illegality.

A radical change or rethink in drug policy.
_________________
Democracy is dead.

Bear · Bentlian Oldboy Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 863 Status:

I know certain well known names have been used to illustrate the wealthy people who are able to use drugs without resorting to criminal activity but I have to say that these are very much in the minority and probably represent less than 1% of those using drugs today. The majority have to resort to some sort of criminal behaviour to fund their habit and it is these which need to be helped and the first step is to script them to reduce their need to offend as I said before other factors come into play in the attempt to prevent relapse. Now this system is not perfect I agree but the alternative of making drugs legal has other implications which would need to b considered. Geddi you yourself mention the children who are born with an addiction because their mothers have been addicts. How would this be prevented should drugs become legal is a starting point, Sterilisation of all those who use? , how would we know who was using and who was not without listing all those who purchase and would this drive use underground. Who would sell the drugs and if it was private business what would stop them putting the price up? Would VAT be charged and would it be moral for a government to do so? There are many more such questions which would have to be addressed. I personally am against legalising drugs on moral grounds but having said that I used to smoke so who am I to comment.

Geddi · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject:

Bear: There are two countries that I am aware of within Europe who have decriminalised all drugs. One is Switzerland and the other is Portugal. The experiment is still unfolding so conclusions are still not certain, but so far it appears to be working well with regard to ending a lot of the accompanying crime.

In the Netherlands, where there has been a much more relaxed policy than in UK on 'softer' drugs for a few decades, but not a complete relaxing of them as in Portugal and Switzerland , there are several problems which have emerged. They are different problems than we have in the UK and some of them relate to bordering countries, including the UK putting pressure on the Netherlands and increasing border patrols.

Many of the social problems which arise from illegal drug use is due to the illegality of the supply and use, and can lead to being very secretive about the problem due to stigma. An example in Calne from very likeable local people who I know personally was an outraged response to the idea of a needle exchange in Calne some six years ago or so. What was not realised was the positive effect the needle exchange has on the local situation/fallout. Dropped/dumped needles are a thrice hazard with cuts, poisons and infections potentially in each badly disposed of hyperdermic syringe. The exchange has not ended the dumping, but it always reduces it, and it allows medical professionals to keep an eye on drug users health and have a link back into 'normal' life.
_________________
Democracy is dead.