• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Should heroin addicts be forced to pay for their own 'treatment'?

Remember that a dose of pharmacrutical-grade diacetylmorphine would cost pennies, if not for the insane effort that goes into attempting to ensure nobody is actually enjoying it. And it needn't even be criminal.

A technique for stimulating the glands into producing more endorphins probably would be even cheaper .....
 
Your attempts to belittle me betray the fact that you are completely lost. It's almost touching. I shall skim the pro-drug propaganda, but it is unlikely to sway my opinion. Enough is simply enough.
 
Sorry but that book is not pro drug propaganda

about the authors ..

Ian Stolerman received a PhD in Psychopharmacology at University College London in 1969. This was followed by postdoctoral experience at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (NY) and the University of California, Los Angeles. He then moved to Birmingham and became a member of the MRC Neuropharmacology Unit. In 1980 he relocated to the Institute of Psychiatry, London where he remains as a member of the MRC External Scientific Staff. He heads the Section of Behavioural Pharmacology and is co-chair of the Institute’s addictions interdisciplinary research group.

As part of his efforts to raise the profile of the discipline of behavioural pharmacology, Ian Stolerman was a founder of the European Behavioural Pharmacology Society and became its first chairperson in 1986. Since 1992 he has been Co-Editor of the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence and he is now vice-President of the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors.

The Drug-discrimination Database, maintained by Professor Stolerman and funded by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse is a unique research tool for both students and research professionals interested in the neurobiological bases of addiction. The drug discrimination method is widely recognised as an invaluable method for studying the behavioural and neuropharmacological effects of psychoactive drugs and plays an important role in developing pharmacotherapies useful in treating psychiatric disorders and addiction.
 
So: written by people with a vested interest in the medicalisation of drug abuse, with no real consideration of the social context in the communities blighted by heroin.
 
There is no point debating with this guy. He creates accounts for one reason only. To troll and argue. Debating him does nothing but encourage him. If everyone ignored him he will soon get bored and go and play elsewhere.

Yeah I think anyone who brushes aside the huge body of decades of scientific literature, research, and the findings of world leading expert scientists in this field obviously is just regurgitating drunken bar chat from his fellow homunculi.

Besides I have a lot of work to do today.
 
If chips were banned, do you honestly imagine that the social harm associated with chip consumption would be reduced? Or would there be a speight of fires, electrocutions and carbon monoxide poisoning from ill-maintained deep fryers; poisonings from dodgy vinegar cut with laboratory reagents; and used frying oil dumped all over the countryside, as well as more obesity?
 
Yeah I think anyone who brushes aside the huge body of decades of scientific literature, research, and the findings of world leading expert scientists in this field obviously is just regurgitating drunken bar chat from his fellow homunculi.

Besides I have a lot of work to do today.
I used to get drawn into debating trolls but i realised in the end it was taking up too much of my time, frustrating me and making me hate humanity. Its just not worth it brother.
 
Your articles are all impressively scholarly on the surface, but each and every one clearly advocates the medicalisation of heroin treatment, which we all know is NOT working. The sooner we adopt the attitude that the best treatment for addiction is abstinence, the sooner we can deal with the problem of state-subsidised addicts committing crime and funding the predatory dealers, all whilst receiving their enabling medicine at the taxpayer's expense.
 
If chips were banned, do you honestly imagine that the social harm associated with chip consumption would be reduced? Or would there be a speight of fires, electrocutions and carbon monoxide poisoning from ill-maintained deep fryers; poisonings from dodgy vinegar cut with laboratory reagents; and used frying oil dumped all over the countryside, as well as more obesity?
This is amusing for a few seconds before it becomes apparent that the analogy just doesn't work.
 
the cure for cancer hasn't been found yet either, do you think the health profession should just stop bothering with the research and use the money to give you more tax credits or a higher wage?

Right that's enough from me today on this topic. Au revoir & bouffe-pine.
 
the cure for cancer hasn't been found yet either, do you think the health profession should just stop bothering with the research and use the money to give you more tax credits or a higher wage?
Don't be absurd. Again, not remotely analogous.
 
What else do you resent your precious taxes being spent on, while you're letting off steam? Genuinely curious. Think about it for 3 hours then I'll check back.
 
This is a single-issue campaign. Our wider fiscal policy is not a matter for discussion on a drug forum, as I struggle to see the relevance.
 
What the fuck is a prohibitionist fantasist (because the idea that people might ever stop taking drugs is nothing more than a fantasy; there is a greater probability of people stopping having sex) like you even doing on a harm-reduction forum like this anyway? There is clearly no mind-changing going to happen on either side.

Isn't there a light socket somewhere that needs your finger sticking in it?
 
From a moderator, that's charming. Aren't you here for discussion? Or is this forum strictly reserved for backslapping, collective denial and cronyism?
 
A moral issue, a criminal issue and a personal issue. I believe counselling and a managed rapid detox should be offered initially. Maintenance, however, is both wrong and ineffective, and should not be paid for by the taxpayer.

Inpatient detox costs far more than methadone maintenance. I can see where you are coming from, but withdrawing methadone maintenance would be a bad move for society, and would lead us back to the pre-methadone days of the early 80's where acquisitive crime increased exponentially throughout many a community as a direct consequence of the emergence of heroin being sold within working class communities. I don't think anybody wants to return to those days.

There are two things that annoy me about the substance misuse treatment industry, and it has become an industry, just like most other health and social care services. One of them is that any EU junkie now has the right to plonk themselves in the UK and start demanding free methadone. I've absolutely no problem with people migrating to the UK in order to better themselves and contribute to society. But no way am I OK with people who come over here and demand free methadone whilst pimping or selling themselves on the streets. Immigration to the UK should be based on factors other than your nationality, as allowing some people in just because of their nationality, whilst excluding other people based on their nationality (non-EU), is quite clearly racist.

The other thing which annoys me is when people think they have a right to go to rehab. They don't. And I feel a mixture of laughter and frustration when people threaten legal action over not going to rehab, or even just a delay in going to rehab. Go ahead, commence legal action, see how far you get! People don't realise that they are lucky to be dealing with a service that still has a process in which people can be sent to rehab, as many areas have stopped it completely, even if they don't admit to it, and people will only get it in extremely exceptional circumstances.

The cost of rehab is a joke, and the success rates make them very bad value for money. I don't think it is right to be spending between 6k - 12k on people who have chosen to spend their lives getting wrecked all day long, not with all the cuts that are taking place for people who have serious health or social problems through no fault of their own. I think it's quite similar to these people who somehow get the NHS to waste 6k on a boob job for them. NHS and/or local authority money should not be wasted in this way.
 
Last edited:
Top