BBC: Why is heroin killing so many people?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Get £3 off a tenner bit when you mention Big Gilly from the gym.

I'm passionate about knocking the beak out for £40 snots.

That's the Singapore model. I could live with that...if those were the rules.

I've never read the thread but the usual nut jobs who havnt lived amongst /dealt with these shit bags will come on with some pathetic excuse for it .
 


With all due respect I don't need to watch Stacey Dooley on drugs. I did an MSc based around harm reduction and am starting a PhD on it. I spend most my life with drug users, both in the community and in prisons, as well as reading pretty much every paper under the sun about drug abuse and how to minimise the harms of it.

You're hitting me with a lot of stuff which is (presumably) anecdotal at best. Unless you have a source on 90% of heroin addicts failing to abide by rules then it's pretty meaningless to a serious conversation about heroin use.

You can prescribe a drug and not "normalise" it. Prior to 2016 there were hundreds of substances which were legal but were not normalised (e.g. all the NPS drugs). Often criminalisation has done nothing to stop the use of a drug c.f. ketamine. Also, it's worth pointing out that if you go to hospital and need serious pain killers you may well be given I.V. diamorphine, which is heroin. So we actually prescribe heroin for people in extreme pain. That hasn't resulted in it being "normalised".

Once again, you say that legalisation/ decriminalisation may result in normalisation, but as per my previous post decriminalisation doesn't result in normalisation. In fact, as I said, when they decriminalised drugs in Portugal heroin addiction fell. Holland has persistently had lower rates of cannabis consumption than the UK despite being legal to purchase. In Colorado, post legalisation there was a small increase in cannabis rates but a decrease in cannabis consumption amongst children & young adults; those most vulnerable to mental health effects. You're assuming that decriminalisation/ legalisation/ regulation affect consumption rates, and the empirical evidence is they don't. If you get into heroin the last concern will be whether you might get 100 hours community service for possession, or even a custodial sentence. Your concern will probably be scoring heroin. Hence why so many addicts will steal/ sell themselves/ whatever to keep using. However, it's also worth mentioning that a lot of heroin addicts hold down jobs for years and years.
Nice one. I deffo understand where you coming from tbh am only going off a lads word who worked in the needle exchange and my ex Mrs who is a pharmacy technician and gave out the meds to the addicts. (People at ground level lets say)

Can I ask you and smb members a couple of questions about addiction?
Do you like or even have a dependency on alcohol? May answer is yes.
Would you accept said alcohol if it was free from the government?
 
^^^

Just to support this post and its sentiments, there is a huge problem with spice in many of the North East prisons. There is also a problem in some prisons with Buscopan (!!!) being smoked. This isn't because people particularly like spice, but because it's much easier to smuggle into a prison than actual cannabis (a bag of synthetic cannabinoids can be worth thousands in prison and it would be impossible to smuggle in a comparable amount of weed). In addition MDT's (mandatory drug tests) can pick up on weed weeks after someone smokes it, whereas they struggle to pick up on all the synthetic cannabinoids, and they don't hang around in the system as long. Also if you smoke weed, you'll stink out the corridor and a guard will be along soon. So people don't smoke spice because they prefer it to weed (in prisons at least), but because the system has the unintentional consequence of pushing people to smoke it. I can't tell you how many people working in prisons I've met who think it would cause a lot less shit if prisoners could smoke hash every now and then. Of course it's politically unacceptable - "why should prisoners smoke weed?!?" - but it would almost certainly save lives and prevent prison officers being brutally attacked by someone losing their shit on spice. It would also save society a huge amount of money - it's thoroughly depressing how many people I've met who entered prison using alcohol/ drugs occasionally and became dependent on spice or opiates in prison.



Yes. The problem of the Dutch system is that while possession and buying is legal, supply is technically illegal. Cannabis clubs in Spain are a better model. The best model (imo) is Uruguay. You can buy weed legally from a state run supplier. Weed can't be more than 15% THC and there's a monthly ration. The price is also set by the state. The only addition I would make is that I'd stipulate a minimum amount of CBD in cannabis - circa 2%. But they have banned advertising. The aspect of the US models (thus far) which worries me is that they've not regulated the market properly and they've wound up with "big cannabis" who are advertising, pushing stronger products, and ones which would entice children (e.g. THC laced gummy bears).
It's absolutely tragic, isn't it? People's main argument against giving people safer access to drugs is basically sentimental. Or at least appears to be. The sort of attitude that says drug users are bad people who don't deserve help is the sort of thinking that prevents sensible drug legislation, and ends up turning small time users into addicts, because they won't seek help, and pushes more dangerous drugs into public hands because they're often easier to access than the safer alternatives.

The strongest anti drug attitudes often make the problems worse. The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad
 
Nice one. I deffo understand where you coming from tbh am only going off a lads word who worked in the needle exchange and my ex Mrs who is a pharmacy technician and gave out the meds to the addicts. (People at ground level lets say)

Can I ask you and smb members a couple of questions about addiction?
Do you like or even have a dependency on alcohol? May answer is yes.
Would you accept said alcohol if it was free from the government?
Yes, I like alcohol. I'm not physically dependent on it.

And it depends. If the government was giving out free pints in pubs then yes, I would take it. If I was going into a Drs surgery to be injected alcohol so I was intoxicated but wasn't amongst my friends chatting shit and didn't get to taste it etc then no.

But if someone is seriously alcohol dependent then they should be tapered off it by medical staff safely.

But comparing heroin addiction to me knocking back 7 pints on a Saturday is a false equivalence.
 
Got to ask the question.

Are you a drug dealer?

Not quite. Listen I'm not completely against prescribing heroin but in my experience, most addicts use as much as possible and I just think they'd also be buying street gear. I appreciate other countries models may suggest it's successful but that's. It to say it would work here. I don't dislike anyone I've met just because of their addiction, a lot are lovely people and I get on well with them. Some aren't very nice but you can say that about any demographic.
I don't have a solution but I can tell you that targeting dealers is way, way down the list of priorities of most police forces because they're focussed on safeguarding vulnerable people, trafficking, modern slavery etc.
And I think that's a mistake and allowing heroin and other drugs to become more available and dealing it a relatively safe and profitable occupation.
 
Some of it went to coffee shops eh - that's nice. I'm sure that the few plants used for their own purpose catered admirably, not just for themselves but also for the bulk needed to cater for the tourist industry. I learned so much that Holland are now ready to admit they fucked their relaxed drug laws up and they're now looking to make weed legal with the government doing the growing and taking the illegal farms out of the loop. That's an admission that just relaxing drug laws has not worked for them. I learned lots.

You're not getting it at all are you. When they did the soft drugs/hard drugs split, it was because they had a serious heroin problem, not a weed problem, and they wanted to focus on that. A main reason for their heroin problem was simply Rotterdam. Tonnes of the f***ing stuff was being shipped there and it was effectively the distribution hub for Europe. The police simply weren't going to spend time on weed but legislation at that time was unthinkable due to attitudes of the public. Same cry you hear today "Can't make drugs legal". They couldn't, so they fudged it. It's no great secret that it was basically the police not doing anything about it as it was a waste of their time and resources compared to other problems they had, namely heroin. And that fudged system has stayed in place ever since. However, and this is the point you're not getting, is that the fudged system they did put in place wasn't because they had a problem with weed, it was a side effect of their solution to dealing with the heroin issue.

TBF, the Dutch should have got on top of this years ago. I was hearing that from coffee shop owners who wanted legislation when I lived there in the late 90's, so it's nowt new. It's only taken the Government 20 years to catch up with what people in the industry have been saying, so it's at least a start from them.
 
Yes, I like alcohol. I'm not physically dependent on it.

And it depends. If the government was giving out free pints in pubs then yes, I would take it. If I was going into a Drs surgery to be injected alcohol so I was intoxicated but wasn't amongst my friends chatting shit and didn't get to taste it etc then no.

But if someone is seriously alcohol dependent then they should be tapered off it by medical staff safely.

But comparing heroin addiction to me knocking back 7 pints on a Saturday is a false equivalence.
No your right it's not.
But also asking any addict to get there fix in a surgery or any other environment than the normal must be hard work would you agree? So quite rightly you would not do it even for free. Taking into account your not an alcoholic.
So firstly the will as to be there?

Which if it is the programmes in place should surely work?
In my opinion and my small and second hand knowledge of the subject the current programmes don't work. All you will be doing is changing the substitute (methadone) for the real thing.
 
You're not getting it at all are you. When they did the soft drugs/hard drugs split, it was because they had a serious heroin problem, not a weed problem, and they wanted to focus on that. A main reason for their heroin problem was simply Rotterdam. Tonnes of the f***ing stuff was being shipped there and it was effectively the distribution hub for Europe. The police simply weren't going to spend time on weed but legislation at that time was unthinkable due to attitudes of the public. Same cry you hear today "Can't make drugs legal". They couldn't, so they fudged it. It's no great secret that it was basically the police not doing anything about it as it was a waste of their time and resources compared to other problems they had, namely heroin. And that fudged system has stayed in place ever since. However, and this is the point you're not getting, is that the fudged system they did put in place wasn't because they had a problem with weed, it was a side effect of their solution to dealing with the heroin issue.

TBF, the Dutch should have got on top of this years ago. I was hearing that from coffee shop owners who wanted legislation when I lived there in the late 90's, so it's nowt new. It's only taken the Government 20 years to catch up with what people in the industry have been saying, so it's at least a start from them.
And the point that you're not getting is that this little side conversation started when you said...Strangely enough, if you look at Holland again, they never developed a Spice problem on a scale like ours. Wonder if the fact you can buy weed legally had owt to do with it.

Heroin wasn't part of this topic. Spice was...and I don't want to see cannabis legalized, carrying with it it's own psychotropic problems just because morons decide they just have to have some kind of buzz and they don't mind where it comes from even if it's from coming some china man's kitchen. Somewhere personal responsibility has to come into this and it's not the fault that cannabis is illegal that kids want to put whatever shite they can get hold of into their bodies.

Coffee shop owners might have wanted legalization twenty years ago but that doesn't mean that they should get legalization.
 
Last edited:
Not quite. Listen I'm not completely against prescribing heroin but in my experience, most addicts use as much as possible and I just think they'd also be buying street gear. I appreciate other countries models may suggest it's successful but that's. It to say it would work here. I don't dislike anyone I've met just because of their addiction, a lot are lovely people and I get on well with them. Some aren't very nice but you can say that about any demographic.
I don't have a solution but I can tell you that targeting dealers is way, way down the list of priorities of most police forces because they're focussed on safeguarding vulnerable people, trafficking, modern slavery etc.
And I think that's a mistake and allowing heroin and other drugs to become more available and dealing it a relatively safe and profitable occupation.
Thats fair play mate.

I believe an alternative model would reduce a lot of drug related problems. However, I don't think we should just bring it in tomorrow. I do think we should be piloting it in half a dozen authorities around the country over 2-5 years and see what the effects are.
 
Thats fair play mate.

I believe an alternative model would reduce a lot of drug related problems. However, I don't think we should just bring it in tomorrow. I do think we should be piloting it in half a dozen authorities around the country over 2-5 years and see what the effects are.
Heading in that direction, fortunately. Most the HR campaigns I've been involved in have been well supported by the police, health services, the managers of the site etc. It's politicians who invariably seem antagonistic to them.
 
Give it up then? The problem is, if it's so easily available for free every day there's absolutely no incentive at all to give up.

Its easily available anyway, its just where you get it from and how you fund it that is the issue for society.

On the flip side of this alcohol undoubtedly kills more people in the UK, costs the NHS far more, results in far more collateral damage to families, children, innocent victims of drunken violence etc.

If you gave me a choice of which drug to get rid of then booze would be that drug all day long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heading in that direction, fortunately. Most the HR campaigns I've been involved in have been well supported by the police, health services, the managers of the site etc. It's politicians who invariably seem antagonistic to them.

That's understandable, they are the ones that are running the risk of losing their seats. These things can take ages because even with a massive stack of evidence politicians need to consider public opinion.

Unfortunately public opinion is often counter intuitive, as has been seen in this thread.
 
And the point that you're not getting is that this little side conversation started when you said...Strangely enough, if you look at Holland again, they never developed a Spice problem on a scale like ours. Wonder if the fact you can buy weed legally had owt to do with it.

Heroin wasn't part of this topic. Spice was...and I don't want to see cannabis legalized, carrying with it it's own psychotropic problems just because morons decide they just have to have some kind of buzz and they don't mind where it comes from even if it's from coming some china man's kitchen. Somewhere personal responsibility has to come into this and it's not the fault that cannabis is illegal that kids want to put whatever shite they can get hold of into their bodies.

Shoot me down for using legal instead of tolerated. In all respects of actual policy and being arrested for it, it's effectively legal. That was the term I used and everyone else did in the years I lived there so that's why I use it now. I'm sorry if that's not up to your perfect standards. And I couldn't care less what you think about legislation as you just branded all weed smokers morons. Happily, the Dutch are more sensible than you and might just be getting their arses into gear to sort out a long overdue situation. Feb 2017.

Cannabis is currently illegal in the Netherlands, however, Dutch lawmakers today approved legislation that would permit the professional cultivation of marijuana.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...w-about-smoking-marijuana-in-the-netherlands/

I seem to remember you saying Holland's drug policies were pointless. How do you square that with their success in massively reducing the amount of heroin both available and being consumed back in the 70's?
 
Thats fair play mate.

I believe an alternative model would reduce a lot of drug related problems. However, I don't think we should just bring it in tomorrow. I do think we should be piloting it in half a dozen authorities around the country over 2-5 years and see what the effects are.

If nothing else, the piloting authorities would be soaking up a lot of users heading their way from non piloting areas! But yup, worth a try, why not. On reflection, I suppose if people genuinely wanting to come off it or at least regulate their use benefitted from it, the others who just live a life of taking heroin then rock, heroin and crack and have no interest in changing because they love it, might become a minority who could be targeted by the justice system, locked up and put on programmes.

Shoot me down for using legal instead of tolerated. In all respects of actual policy and being arrested for it, it's effectively legal. That was the term I used and everyone else did in the years I lived there so that's why I use it now. I'm sorry if that's not up to your perfect standards. And I couldn't care less what you think about legislation as you just branded all weed smokers morons. Happily, the Dutch are more sensible than you and might just be getting their arses into gear to sort out a long overdue situation. Feb 2017.

Cannabis is currently illegal in the Netherlands, however, Dutch lawmakers today approved legislation that would permit the professional cultivation of marijuana.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...w-about-smoking-marijuana-in-the-netherlands/

I seem to remember you saying Holland's drug policies were pointless. How do you square that with their success in massively reducing the amount of heroin both available and being consumed back in the 70's?

It's utterly pointless criminalising cannabis users in this country because there's so many people use it. No police force is pursuing people who smoke it and the only cultivation aspect they're interested in is that which uses potentially trafficked Vietnamese to farm it or organised crime groups involved. Legalise it and those two issues go away. If there was a referendum on legalising cannabis I suspect it would be an overwhelming yes and at some point, a government has to recognise that they have to go with what people want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cannabis is currently illegal in the Netherlands, however, Dutch lawmakers today approved legislation that would permit the professional cultivation of marijuana.

I seem to remember you saying Holland's drug policies were pointless. How do you square that with their success in massively reducing the amount of heroin both available and being consumed back in the 70's?

Exactly. They didn't just relax police policy towards prosecutions against cannabis users, they made it into a cottage industry that got out of control and that is an admission of the failure of creating a mass market.

County Durham police have in effect negated that by openly stating that they aren't coming after people who have a little grow tent in the back bedroom so that they can get on with the more serious crimes including serious drug crime. So what's the difference? Get growing in the DH area and no one will stop you...as long as you don't take the piss. They just aren't creating an industry, that's all.
 
If nothing else, the piloting authorities would be soaking up a lot of users heading their way from non piloting areas! But yup, worth a try, why not. On reflection, I suppose if people genuinely wanting to come off it or at least regulate their use benefitted from it, the others who just live a life of taking heroin then rock, heroin and crack and have no interest in changing because they love it, might become a minority who could be targeted by the justice system, locked up and put on programmes.
Why would the pilot areas soak up a lot of users?

You wouldn't just be turning up and getting free heroin, just as I couldn't mooch to the pharmacy now and get a dose of subutex.

If Sunderland's public health team just said "fuck it, we aren't paying for supervised consumption any more, it's too expensive" South Tyneside isn't going to start picking up those clients.

You would get some people moving to to the LA, a bit like a really shitty catchment area. Would it be a huge amount? I guess we'd find out with the pilot. :p
 
Why would the pilot areas soak up a lot of users?

You wouldn't just be turning up and getting free heroin, just as I couldn't mooch to the pharmacy now and get a dose of subutex.

If Sunderland's public health team just said "fuck it, we aren't paying for supervised consumption any more, it's too expensive" South Tyneside isn't going to start picking up those clients.

You would get some people moving to to the LA, a bit like a really shitty catchment area. Would it be a huge amount? I guess we'd find out with the pilot. :p

If I was a user from Newcastle and somewhere in Cumbria started on the pilot, I'd be across there to get some for free that's clean and I imagine decent. Why wouldn't I? I suppose that's assuming getting heroin is my primary focus in life which it is in my experience. I'm not saying that isn't something that couldn't be overcome but my guess is that residents in that area might object to a likely influx of users, justified or not.
 
If I was a user from Newcastle and somewhere in Cumbria started on the pilot, I'd be across there to get some for free that's clean and I imagine decent. Why wouldn't I? I suppose that's assuming getting heroin is my primary focus in life which it is in my experience. I'm not saying that isn't something that couldn't be overcome but my guess is that residents in that area might object to a likely influx of users, justified or not.
So you just have a caveat saying to eligible you need to have lived in the borough for X months/years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top