• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Cut crime by giving addicts hard drugs on prescription - police chief

tambourine-man

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
15,970
Key quote: "If we could help addicts to get a fix on the state rather than from dealers, then it's possible we could stop them housebreaking and thieving." - JOHN VINE, TAYSIDE CHIEF CONSTABLE


ONE of Scotland's top police officers called yesterday for hard drugs such as heroin to be prescribed to addicts who have turned to crime to feed their habit.

John Vine, Tayside's Chief Constable, is believed to be the most senior officer in Scotland to back the proposal. He said: "We need to consider things that have perhaps been unpalatable in the past, such as the prescribing of class A drugs to chaotic users.

"If we could help addicts to get a fix on the state rather than from dealers, then it's possible we could stop them housebreaking and thieving."

He admitted enforcement had failed to make a dent in the illegal drugs trade or stem the rising tide of drug-related crime, despite seizures of hard narcotics in his area tripling in the past year.

But his radical suggestion was lambasted by experts, who claimed the scheme could tempt addicts into committing crimes just so they could get drugs.

Mr Vine was speaking after Tayside Police's annual report revealed a three-fold increase in seizures of hard drugs compared with the previous year. Drug- related deaths rose from 29 to 36.

Mr Vine said as much as 75 per cent of property crime was believed to be drug-related. But he insisted enforcement could not, by itself, deal with the rising use of hard drugs.

"If we do not reduce demand [for drugs], there will always be people coming in with more to supply," he said. "I am suggesting that we could have a pilot in my area of prescribing Class A substances to chaotic users".

Mr Vine - awarded a CBE in the Queen's birthday honours list - also called for special drugs courts to be established.

He warned: "We are not going to make progress unless certain things are taken out of the 'too difficult' box."

He will now seek meetings with ministers and health authorities in a bid to hammer out a long-term solution.

However, his call was condemned as "a counsel of despair" by Professor Neil McKeganey, head of drug misuse research at Glasgow University, who said: "This would be an extremely risky initiative to develop...you do that, you're basically legalising heroin."

He said moves to prescribe heroin to the most chaotic users could increase crime, because addicts who had not come to the attention of the police could be tempted to commit offences to get free supplies of drugs. He went on: "We bear a responsibility for our addict population to provide treatments which enable them to get off drugs and start to make a contribution to society and to gain employment and education.

"This is not an answer to any of that - it's merely a proposal to reduce inconvenience to other people."

Prof McKeganey said Mr Vine's views were also a tacit admission that Scotland's huge and expensive methadone treatment programme had been a failure.

He said academic studies had shown the most effective way of treating addicts was by residential rehabilitation programmes. But little cash went on that kind of treatment, while more than £15 million was spent providing methadone to about a third of Scotland's 22,000 registered addicts.

Fergus Ewing, the community safety minister, appeared to distance himself from Mr Vine. He said: "There are currently no plans in Scotland to promote the medical prescribing of class A drugs for long-term addicts.

"However, I agree with John Vine that we must have a coherent policy that detains in prison the dangerous in society, but looks to treat the troubled - like drug addicts."

Drug addicts will be able to identify online the best treatment available for them when Mr Ewing, launches Scotland's first national drugs directory today.

The site will enable drug users and their families to find treatment centres and see whether abstinence or methadone prescription are offered.


FOR

PROPONENTS of giving addicts drugs on the NHS argue the UK's attitude to drugs has been shaped by "moral panic" rather than rational analysis.

Some studies have argued government policy should focus on harm reduction and even called for the creating of state-run shooting galleries to ensure addicts can take drugs safely. Some experts argue that, if drug-taking does not harm others, criminal sanctions should not be applied and prison should be reserved for serious drug-related crimes.

It has also been claimed that Britain's drugs policy is flawed as politicians fear being labelled "soft on crime."


AGAINST

OPPONENTS of loosening Scotland's tight control of drugs insist that heroin on prescription will send out the wrong message to users.

Some experts said that the chance of free drugs could even increase crime instead of lowering it as addicts could use crime to get on prescription programmes. They say such schemes risk "turning over control of prescription to addicts" because they would have to be prescribed enough drugs to match their illegal usage.

Doctors also argue it would be difficult to restrict the scheme to heroin alone, leading to the spectre of cocaine and crack on the NHS.

Thoughtful, respected, but no stranger to controversy

JOHN VINE has proved to be one of Scotland's most thoughtful - and controversial - police officers since he was appointed Tayside's chief constable in November 2000.

He has taken on the likes of Jeremy Clarkson over speeding, lambasted sexism within the police and successfully led the policing operation at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in 2005.

However, the Yorkshireman caused uproar with a joke at an after-dinner speech last year about teenage suicide bombers that ended: "Kids blow up very quickly these days."

He later apologised for that remark, but has been willing to court controversy deliberately when he deemed it necessary.

Mr Vine, who was president of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland from 2003-4, accused motoring journalists like Clarkson of encouraging speeding by highlighting the "excitement associated with fast cars".

He also studied for an MSc degree in human resources at Abertay University in his spare time, studying the problems facing women police officers.

Mr Vine found a "glass ceiling" which made it difficult for talented female officers to reach the top of their profession. His finest hour came when the policing of the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005 received worldwide praise. The relatively low level of violence was part of the reason Mr Vine was awarded a CBE in this year's Queen's birthday honours list.

Mr Vine, who is married with children, received the Queen's Police Medal in 2002 for distinguished police service.


Cut crime by giving addicts hard drugs on prescription - police chief
RAYMOND HAINEY
The Scotsman
Tue 26 Jun 2007
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=996322007
 
that would be funny if a criminal justice degree gives you the ability to prescribe narcotics

how about we just treat them like their more toxic more intoxicating second-cousin alcohol, sell them off the shelf
 
Exactly, the government has no fucking business handing out free drugs to people just because they have to resort to crime to purchase them.
I can't afford a PS3 so should the government provide me one to avoid the costs of me stealing and pawning to get it?

Legalize the drugs and sell them through pharmacies at a fair market price, problem solved. I don't know too many alcoholics that have to resort to burglary.
 
I'd like to get some drugs prescribed too. Is there a form where I can register?:) It would piss me off to see repeating offenders getting good coke on prescription while I (law-abiding, non offender) would still have to go out and take risks.

Fact is, the only solution is for drugs to be liberalized and sold as commodities.
 
he's on the right lines, heroin is very cheap to produce, all the profit mark up goes to the gangsters (or the CIA, same thing i guess..). methadone (already on prescription) is a damn nasty drug and there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about it being worse to come off than heroin and more psychologically damaging.

addicts are going to get their fix somehow and bringing down cost (or free on prescription) means less crime is committed. it also means an unadulterated supply which is going to help general health.

the point about the best recovery programs being expensive and residential based is important tho. so why not try the following:

1) free heroin on prescription for addicts (the definition of addict might be a problem but let's say someone with 10+ track marks losing weight and teeth)

2) All money saved on drug enforcement, crime, courts and jail to be spent on rehab for addicts

3) Success judged by - increased quality of life in poorer estates. lower crime figures. increased health (less premature death) of addict population. increased recovery from opiate addiction

4) time trialled (nationally) for 3 years

as to sending out the wrong message, or rich kid jealousy, consider the social effect of prescribing free ethanol to alcohol addicts and how that might change peoples perceptions of what is, after all, THE most damaging drug..
 
garuda said:
Legalize the drugs and sell them through pharmacies at a fair market price, problem solved. I don't know too many alcoholics that have to resort to burglary.

Yep %) %) %)
 
garuda said:
Exactly, the government has no fucking business handing out free drugs to people just because they have to resort to crime to purchase them.
I can't afford a PS3 so should the government provide me one to avoid the costs of me stealing and pawning to get it?

Legalize the drugs and sell them through pharmacies at a fair market price, problem solved. I don't know too many alcoholics that have to resort to burglary.

I agree. This is like treating the symptoms when you could actually cure the disease.
 
garuda said:
Legalize the drugs and sell them through pharmacies at a fair market price, problem solved. I don't know too many alcoholics that have to resort to burglary.
I don't know too many pharmacists who'd be prepared to sell them as marketable consumer goods.

It contradicts the whole notion of pharmacy... probably for the same reason that they don't sell alcohol.
 
qaruda, yes the government does have business doing that. Your selfishness and jealousy are not more important than preventing crime throughout society. If hard drugs were legal and affordable, or subsidized for those who cannot afford the market rate, it would instantly stop most crime that takes place every day. I'd wager that most burglaries, car thefts, murders, bribery, muggings, and kidnappings would stop happening if those who prefer being addicted to drugs did not have to worry about how to support their addiction. HIV infection rates would plummet. We'd be able to fire 90% of law enforcement and fight real crime more effectively with 5% of the budget.

The choice that modern civilization has made is that it's better to marginalize and punish the poor, addicted, and mentally ill than to give them a free/easy ride through life. This marginalization is the root cause of most crime in the West. We can continue fighting these unwinnable wars on drugs and terror, or we can admit defeat and live in peace and harmony.
 
I don't know too many alcoholics that have to resort to burglary

many alcoholics commit crime to get their fix. agreed, a cheap market price for alcohol can make it less of a necessity than in heroin addiction but alcohol and crime are deeply related; see some police figures...

sell them through pharmacies at a fair market price, problem solved

turn heroin over to the delights of the free market? the pursuit of (or addiction to?) profit means suppliers have no interest in curtailing addiction, or any crime that pays for drugs. you seem to forget that phillip morris and co have only recently, and grudgingly, admitted that cigarettes cause cancer and that nicotine is addictive. they have no commercial interest in the reality of addiction apart from the money it makes them.

alcohol suppliers make the bulk of their profit from 'addicted' drinkers, those that drink beyond the west's recommended guidelines. they have no business interest in promoting 'safe' drinking, apart from the need to appear concerned. they make massive profits and do not care who is hurt in the process. they are entitled to deal in the hardest of hard drugs and the death toll is massive...

for commercial drug interests humanity has always come a poor second to greed and ca$h. What would they do with heroin? The British East India Company's involvement in the opium trade provides an historical example.

it's naive to think the same twisted heads that run Enron, Phillip morris, Halliburton etc etc would be benign suppliers of hard drugs. there is no evidence of this ever happening.

I'm also not keen on government involvement in dope...i prefer the hippy - grow your own and direct trade solution. but people in my community are dying and crime is rising, we need to do something and govt, as bad as it is, appears to be the only realistic solution..

coolio hits it > selfishness and jealousy are not more important than preventing crime throughout society
 
To those that support government provided drugs for addicts, but not legal drugs of known purity sold by pharmacies I have a few questions.

How come the government doesn't provide alcoholics with alcohol? If as was said many alcoholics have to commit crimes to get their fix why are they left off?

So an alcoholic has to work for their fix, while a heroin addict should get theirs free? HUH?

Should income and financial status have anything to do with who gets the free drugs? Are rich addicts going to be told to go pound sand, free drugs only for the poor?

And how do you define an addict? Will they have to have lengthy arrest records to get free drugs? You could have the situation of people commiting crimes just to get on the dole.

I don't see how any of this is better then drugs being sold for fair prices through pharmacies, all the drugs of abuse are long out of patent so prices would be very low. And the government can stop price fixing like they do with all other industry. I'm sure the companies making and selling the drugs would encourage and welcome addiction, but as long as they aren't strapping people down and injecting them whats the problem?

All these issues were worked out a long time ago with the alcohol industry, tight restrictions on advertising and production and retailing. Why couldn't this be applied to all other substances?
 
alcohol suppliers make the bulk of their profit from 'addicted' drinkers

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that alcoholics provide most of the alcohol industry's profit.

And you can't claim that all corporations will act like the tobacco companies if it came down to legalized drugs. There are already plenty of studies out there on drug effects and the harm they may cause. If corporations were allowed to sell illegal drugs it would be in a highly regulated environment. Prices could(should) be kept inline as well as other things such as advertising... I think that's certainly possible.

Personally though, if drugs were legal, I couldn't care less who the supplier was. Be it the gov't, a non-profit, or a corporation, as long as the price is fair...

Edit: I was typing and didn't get a chance to see garuda's post before I posted. Good post though.
 
qaruda, why require proof that someone's an addict? Why not just allow unfettered access to drugs? People already have access to drugs whenever they want, they just have to pay exorbitant prices on the black market. Those who are going to choose drug addiction as a lifestyle are usually going to fuck other people over to get their fix because it's so costly.

What's a better situation, an unemployed thief and coke addict (because a normal job doesn't bring in enough income to supply his addiction, but spending his days stealing shit does), or a gainfully employed coke addict (because his overwhelming urge to score more coke is taken care of for him so that he can have time to focus on living a meaningful life) who's given cheap or free coke and cheap or free therapy/rehab?
 
Coolio said:
qaruda, why require proof that someone's an addict? Why not just allow unfettered access to drugs? People already have access to drugs whenever they want, they just have to pay exorbitant prices on the black market. Those who are going to choose drug addiction as a lifestyle are usually going to fuck other people over to get their fix because it's so costly.

Thats exactly what I'm arguing for, legal drugs sold to anyone over 18.
With the black market element removed and only reasonable taxes drugs would no longer be a crippling financial blow.

Coolio said:
What's a better situation, an unemployed thief and coke addict (because a normal job doesn't bring in enough income to supply his addiction, but spending his days stealing shit does), or a gainfully employed coke addict (because his overwhelming urge to score more coke is taken care of for him so that he can have time to focus on living a meaningful life) who's given cheap or free coke and cheap or free therapy/rehab?

With legal drugs sold at your corner pharmacy even a minimum wage worker could support a habit without resorting to crime.

My post above was in response to the opinion that drugs should not be legalized and sold, but that the government should provide free drugs to addicts.

I'm not the one wanting to quantify addiction.
 
I'm presuming Vine is looking at the Swiss model for addressing opiate addiction. There's a big difference between this model and a 'free trade' , govt or private, in heroin. The who, what, why and relative success of the swiss approach is discussed in the linked article.

Support for alcoholics (UK) is as low; or perhaps lower given the higher incidence of alcoholism; as it is for heroin addicts. Treatment, recovery or maintenance programs are poorly funded and knowledge limited.

Personally I agree, alcoholics should get free alcohol (why not?), but cultural factors, widespread dependence and denial, plus profits for govt, marketeers and drinks companies means addressing alcohol addiction is in its infancy.

slightly calming down on bulk of profit here's a link that claims 50% of drink company profits (USA) are made from youth/addicted drinkers:

http://www.werecover.org/facts_on_addiction_and_recovery.htm


If corporations were allowed to sell illegal drugs it would be in a highly regulated environment

it's possible advertising would be inline, but extremely unlikely. the profits available from drugs are massive and these profits have the power to massively corrupt. The arms trade is, in theory, extensively controlled but there's still enough major wars and weapons out there. Product promotion takes many forms apart from the simplistic TV commercial.

And who will regulate the 'free market' if not the government? So why not cut the possibility of undesirable pressure from the terminally greedy as much as possible and leave control in (slightly more) democratic hands? I have little or no power to influence global corporations like Diago, but at least some power to influence my government.

Given ties between health service economics and govt (in europe at least) the govt has no interest in maintaining, or increasing, an opiate addicted populace (taxing supply would alter this). The 'free market' will always have a financial interest in maintaining or increasing addiction as this is where profits will come from. The legal or quasi-legal opiate trade has always sought an addicted population for profit - UK 19th century, China 19/20th century, India 19/20th century.

There are NO precedents for companies acting responsibly in this area and MANY precedents for them seeking profit without regard to human health.

Yeh, part of me would love to nip to the pharmacist and get sthg pure, but given a (rough) 3 days of constant use for physical dependency (sore withdrawal) I don't believe our consumerist society has the ability to deal with legalised heroin in the same way i don't beleive it's got the abilty to cope with legalised firearms. Some , poor, f*cker will get shot..
 
In England, at least, dry-amps of diamorphine ARE given to some addicts. I know of 2 addicts who pick up dry-amps daily and they are getting on with their lives.
And yes, serious alcoholics CAN get disability payments increased. Addiction is a disease. If you can't cure it, then your into the realms of palliative care.
Anyone who has had pharmacutical heroin AND street 'brown' will most likely say that they prefer brown. The pure stuff is strong, but brown has somewhat different effects (most likely due to the other stuff in there). That's why a 50mg amp sells for 6.50 or so, whereas a point of brown sells for 10.00 I guess...
 
^
Yeah I've heard the same as well. On a different drug forum someone has a good amount of experience with his prescribed diamorphine and with regular street dope. He says he prefers street dope each time.
 
Top