NHS to give addicts free drugs

[fruitfly]

Drug addicts are to be prescribed heroin on the NHS in a controversial plan to cut crime and get users off drugs.

Addicts would be allowed to inject themselves under supervision as part of a scheme costing £12,000 to £15,000 a year for every user.

The scheme is expected to be introduced in Brighton and Hove early next year, possibly February, in a bid to cut some of the dozens of drug-related deaths in the city each year.

Brighton and Hove was named the drug death capital of the UK in October.

Anti-drug campaigners have criticised the trial and said it would not help people to get off drugs.

The trial is being funded by the Home Office and run by the National Treatment Agency and Action On Addiction.

Heroin addicts will be given the drug with which to inject themselves in supervised surroundings, with a specially trained nurse in attendance.

They will receive two injections a day of diamorphine, pharmaceutical heroin, seven days a week and be given methadone to take home in the evenings.

A controversial trial has already been launched in London at the Maudsley Hospital and in Darlington. Addicts in Brighton and Hove will be chosen for the project by researchers from the Maudsley. Researchers will compare the progress of ten addicts given the drug to inject and ten who will be given liquid methadone.

Chris Hughes, substance misuse services manager at the Sussex Partnership NHS Trust, will be running the scheme in the city.

He said the study would involve 150 addicts across the country and 30 would come from Brighton and Hove.

The location of the scheme has not been announced.

Mr Hughes said the heroin would not leave the scheme's base.

He said: "We will be looking at people who have had difficulty benefiting from the mainstream treatments.

"We will be looking at dealing with people who don't respond well to heroin substitutes and being in hospital.

"A lot of people won't come forward for methadone treatment. If this trial is successful it will have all-round benefits for everyone.

"They will look to see the outcomes afterwards and monitor health, reduction in drug use and reduction in crime.

"At the end of the trial we review how people have managed in treatment and make decisions about how we go from there.

"If it is successful then this will be a reason to continue it."

The dose of diamorphine given to each addict would be worked out in the first couple of weeks of the scheme and remain constant throughout, unless the user requested its reduction.

Mr Hughes said: "The idea is to get them stable and keep them stable throughout the trial."

He said all participants would be tested regularly and if any were found to be topping up with "street" heroin, a review of their treatment would be carried out.

Critics have argued the city's high-quality support services attract addicts to the city. There are believed to be about 2,300 heroin addicts living in Brighton and Hove.

Peter Stoker, director of National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: "We're against the idea. It is perpetuating dependency.

"Abstinence should be their goal, not continuance. There needs to be a plan on how to give up not how to keep on using.

"We need to bear in mind that many users have people who are affected by their addiction."

Recovering heroin addict Rick Cook runs a service user group in Brighton.

He said he supported the trial but was concerned what would happen at the end of the trial.

Mr Cook said: "The downside would be the aftercare. Will people be supported after the trial ends? I have been assured they will be supported but it is a concern the trial would just stop."

Justin Grantham, a manager at Brighton and Hove's Crime Reduction Partnership, welcomed the trial but warned it would be controversial.

He said: "For every £100 an addict spends on drugs a week there is £300 of criminal activity a week, about £150,000 a year.

"I'm 100 per cent behind the scheme."

He said it would help cut drug deaths in the city because the heroin would not be contaminated and clean needles would be used in a supervised environment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS to give addicts free drugs
By Louise Acford, The Argus
November 24, 2006


Link

 

[drunken_etard]

thats nuts dude. 15 000 ....thats a little to much money... but yeah dope legally...hmmmm

 

[Astavats]

If it works and they do have if under control then why not I guess.


It's ironic in a sense, government giving drugs to addicts, or use of drugs to help stop drugs lol

 

[dilated_pupils]

Hopefully they don't screw this up and make everything look worse then it did beforehand.

 

[hoptis]

Wow, this is actually happening. In a limited capacity sure but is this the first time it has seriously been trialled in the U.K?

 

[Infinite Jest]

This is actually returning things to how they were in the 1950s. Heroin used to be available on prescription to addicts. When that scheme was stopped, the number of addicts increased dramatically.

So hopefully this will keep things under control. At the least, it's better than addicts ODing, sharing needles, and mugging people to pay for their fix.

 

[Gaz_hmmmm]

Wow, this is actually happening. In a limited capacity sure but is this the first time it has seriously been trialled in the U.K?

No it's not. I don't know the full story but in the 90's it was tried and the Govt' decided to stop it. The addicts who got dia' ended up going to court and winning, so they got their dia' scripts back. I think there's about 15,000 who get dia' now cause they're addicts. I remember reading that they were all over the country and that the NHS gave it out in different forms (And salts?). They had people who smoked, snorted and injected. It even mentioned in the article that they gave it in 'cigarette form'.

I've never been able to figure out how a cigarette form of dia' would work!

It's good to see that they gave it to all types of addicts, not just injectors. It's kinda like them saying "You can have it legally, but you have to risk ruining your life by turning to crime to feed your habit and you MUST inject! Otherwise we're not giving you any!"

I think if the doc's don't give people enough so that they can have the occasional high (Say on the weekend by save their doses up) then I think people may still use street H, but only occasionally for a high. I guess they could save their meth' maybe!

 

[college_dropout]

Addicts would be allowed to inject themselves under supervision as part of a scheme costing £12,000 to £15,000 a year for every user.

That's disgusting. Think of how much more good would come if they put that money towards schools, hospitals and charities instead of wasting it on giving junkies free drugs. Disadvantaged kids deserve that money a hell of a lot more than junkies who chose that lifestyle.

It's good that they're trying to be more progressive in their approach to rehabilition ideas but they should try and get their priorities right first.

 

[chugs]

^^
what is disgusting is how our governments poor billions into arming police to govern what is really a health problem.

the money for this program should be taken out of the polices budget especially when they realise there is a massive drop in crime.

 

[qwe]

That's disgusting. Think of how much more good would come if they put that money towards schools, hospitals and charities instead of wasting it on giving junkies free drugs. Disadvantaged kids deserve that money a hell of a lot more than junkies who chose that lifestyle.

It's good that they're trying to be more progressive in their approach to rehabilition ideas but they should try and get their priorities right first.

from the article: For every £100 an addict spends on drugs a week there is £300 of criminal activity a week, about £150,000 a year.

 

[malevolent society]

simple solution; you stay in jail until you have been clean 12 months. that will stop you.

 

[college_dropout]

from the article: For every £100 an addict spends on drugs a week there is £300 of criminal activity a week, about £150,000 a year.

So you'd give fixing crime rates a higher priority than helping chairities. 8) That's pretty sad. Remember junkies chose to delve deeper into their habits, whereas kids can't pick and chose the homes they grow up in.

Why should we be making it easier for junkies to come off drugs before we make it easier for orphans to grow up? As I said get your priorities sorted. They're more people deserving of that money than filthy criminal junkies.

I can see where you're coming from in hoping to lower the crime rate but I don't see that as any different as bowing down to terrorists.

 

[retortme]

Why is it going to cost so much money? Heroin is not expensive to manufacture. As far as providing a supply to users, I think this a step in the right direction. It cost far more to society to put a person on trial and gaol them (not to mention the crime generated by addicts after more money to get a hit), then it does to supply the drug. Strict measures should be implemented to ensure that the person acquiring the drug has been a long term user and has tried other means (such as methadone or what not) to give the drug up. I have no problem with this. Drug addiction is a health issue not a crime and anyway it should make sense to the economic rationalists.

 

[mik82]

simple solution; you stay in jail until you have been clean 12 months. that will stop you.

That would cost three times as much as simply just giving the addicts the heroin . Into that you've got to factor the costs of using the courts too.

I can see where you're coming from in hoping to lower the crime rate but I don't see that as any different as bowing down to terrorists.

Nice that you've linked them. The "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are both two creations of US policy that have many things in common

1) They manipulate the public through fear tactics
2) They both involve a shadowy enemy.. "The Scourge of drugs" or "Al-Qaeda"
3) They're unwinnable
4) They allow government investment in otherwise unneccessary technology
etc etc.

In both "wars" the absolute refusal to look at the other side's point of view simply has the function of prolonging and proliferating the problem. With terrorism the problem is that the hardcore extremists are beyond reasoning (thanks to the Saudi funded Wahabbist doctrine that most subscribe to). However because we have failed to even listen to the public in the areas where terrorist support is greatest we have simply entrenched the problem and allowed it to spread.

In a similar manner, by attacking drug addiction at the criminal, rather than the social level we simply mop up the addicts causing the most destruction, leaving the problem intact and allowing it to spread. In simple economic terms it makes far more sense to prescribe addicts heroin. You could give that 10-15,000 a year to orphans but then you'd still have addicts either in prison at £35,000 a year or commiting crime that costs society even more than that. If you saved that money by prescribing the heroin then the money saved could be used for other worthy causes.

 

[Skyline_GTR]

^ Great post, spot on.

 

[nuke]

So you'd give fixing crime rates a higher priority than helping chairities. 8) That's pretty sad. Remember junkies chose to delve deeper into their habits, whereas kids can't pick and chose the homes they grow up in.

Why should we be making it easier for junkies to come off drugs before we make it easier for orphans to grow up? As I said get your priorities sorted. They're more people deserving of that money than filthy criminal junkies.

I can see where you're coming from in hoping to lower the crime rate but I don't see that as any different as bowing down to terrorists.

Well, we could just throw the junkies into a pit and set them on fire. And while we're at it, why not throw all the orphans in there too? Surely a bunch of them will grow up to perpetrate crimes or become junkies themselves, since the reason most of them are orphans is because their parents are junkies, in jail, or both.

Even if they are junkies, and are costing a lot of money per year, they're costing even more money stealing your TV and not working like everyone else. It's horrible for productivity and the economy to have 50,000 people laying around on their ass.

I'm not sure if a supervised place to shoot up in necessary though. Maybe some instructional classes to make sure they don't do anything moronic, and a reasonable amount of hospital care for things like infections and all. Overall, I don't think a junkie would need more than $700 worth of heroin and syringes a year.

 

[MrMoss]

So you'd give fixing crime rates a higher priority than helping chairities. 8) That's pretty sad. Remember junkies chose to delve deeper into their habits, whereas kids can't pick and chose the homes they grow up in.

If you look you'll probably find a direct correlation between serious drug abuse and disadvantaged families. In many cases it's not as simple as "Junkies chose to be junkies". Further there are many "Junkies" that lead perfectly respectable lifes and hold down jobs, pay their taxes etc

Why should we be making it easier for junkies to come off drugs before we make it easier for orphans to grow up? As I said get your priorities sorted. They're more people deserving of that money than filthy criminal junkies.

Maybe there will be less orphans if their parents didn't die of HIV, OD's or other complications related to drug mis-use.

I can see where you're coming from in hoping to lower the crime rate but I don't see that as any different as bowing down to terrorists.

Although, this article relates to crime rates there are many other advantages such as a long term reduction in health care costs, stable families etc

Finally, what has this got to do with terrorists? Time you woke up and lived in the real world instead of spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.

 

[malevolent society]

That would cost three times as much as simply just giving the addicts the heroin . Into that you've got to factor the costs of using the courts too.



Nice that you've linked them. The "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are both two creations of US policy that have many things in common

1) They manipulate the public through fear tactics
2) They both involve a shadowy enemy.. "The Scourge of drugs" or "Al-Qaeda"
3) They're unwinnable
4) They allow government investment in otherwise unneccessary technology
etc etc.

In both "wars" the absolute refusal to look at the other side's point of view simply has the function of prolonging and proliferating the problem. With terrorism the problem is that the hardcore extremists are beyond reasoning (thanks to the Saudi funded Wahabbist doctrine that most subscribe to). However because we have failed to even listen to the public in the areas where terrorist support is greatest we have simply entrenched the problem and allowed it to spread.

In a similar manner, by attacking drug addiction at the criminal, rather than the social level we simply mop up the addicts causing the most destruction, leaving the problem intact and allowing it to spread. In simple economic terms it makes far more sense to prescribe addicts heroin. You could give that 10-15,000 a year to orphans but then you'd still have addicts either in prison at £35,000 a year or commiting crime that costs society even more than that. If you saved that money by prescribing the heroin then the money saved could be used for other worthy causes.

you seem to have gotten ahead of yourself. drugs ARE a criminal issue. drugs are ANTI-SOCIAL, so how can it be a social issue. most drug users are adults andas that they should be taking responsibilty for themselves. not being mopped up after by a team of wet nurses.

i really dont give a toss about the cost to keep them in, it will be justified by one offence that affects a person to a degree whci they take a long time to recover from. if your little sister gets raped by a crazed meth junkie, we will quickly see you change your tune.

thats why they should be kept inside until they prove they are of worth to the community. as far as im concerned, if your junkie, you can saty in there FOREVER.

 

[Manifespo]

Nice that you've linked them. The "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are both two creations of US policy that have many things in common

1) They manipulate the public through fear tactics
2) They both involve a shadowy enemy.. "The Scourge of drugs" or "Al-Qaeda"
3) They're unwinnable

I agree except, I believe
These Wars are being WON!!

Consider,
We fight a "War" on
inanimate materials...
especially industrial fibers like cannabis sativa
and ace painkillers like opiates...
constitutes a victory for the elites,
who do more drugs than anyone, anyways...

I'm a mere mortal so I will say no more,
but these 'wars' are merely corporate ideologies,
designed to enhance elite power through various avenues

look up problem, reaction, solution

there is no better pacifier in a scientific dictatorship
than visiting the omnipharmacy

life is like a deli, even if a sandwich isn't on the menu,
if someone asks, you have to make it...famous quote

the question is who's selling it, not what they are selling
the drug war is producing profit, as designed

 

[malevolent society]

Further there are many "Junkies" that lead perfectly respectable lifes and hold down jobs, pay their taxes etc

ssshhheeeeeeesh... never heard such a crock of shit in my life. if you ever think of becoming a lawyer, id like to see your argument with a majistrate over that one.

evry junkie should be registered and have tests FOR LIFE. dont pass, your back in jail for twice as long as your last visit. until you get the message.