BBC: Why is heroin killing so many people?

[joemcdokes]

I'd have thought it was quite simple.

 

[Hulkster]

The idea that people should be forced to go to work to pay taxes to give junkies free heroin is outrageous.

The argument that they will commit crime of we don't give them free heroin is contemptible.

They will do bad things if we don't give them what they want, so we must give it to them, is complete surrender, agreeing to be perpetually held to ransom.

 

[Some Random Guy]

The idea that people should be forced to go to work to pay taxes to give junkies free heroin is outrageous.

The argument that they will commit crime of we don't give them free heroin is contemptible.

They will do bad things if we don't give them what they want, so we must give it to them, is complete surrender, agreeing to be perpetually held to ransom.

We already are paying when you break down the cost to the taxpayer for crime an disorder, prisons, and the NHS etc.

Our taxes fund the systems in place to tackle the issue, and systems in place are shit.

We also pay through the money we get in our back pocket. We'll be covering losses to shops from shoplifting on everything we buy, and increased insurance premiums to cover payouts from drug related burglaries etc.

They already commit crime, the argument is they will commit less crime if they don't need to find their habit.

I understand why you're outraged. Your outrage is the reason we aren't doing it already.

It's not a surrender, it's pragmatism.

 

[Lonz]

We already are paying when you break down the cost to the taxpayer for crime an disorder, prisons, and the NHS etc.

Our taxes fund the systems in place to tackle the issue, and systems in place are shit.

We also pay through the money we get in our back pocket. We'll be covering losses to shops from shoplifting on everything we buy, and increased insurance premiums to cover payouts from drug related burglaries etc.

They already commit crime, the argument is they will commit less crime if they don't need to find their habit.

I understand why you're outraged. Your outrage is the reason we aren't doing it already.

It's not a surrender, it's pragmatism.

It's been spelled out so many times but people don't seem to be able to make the connection. Is it because it's been ingrained in people that it needs to be punished?

 

[Some Random Guy]

So my point is how do you come dependant? Will the rate of people using it not rise? Once they are addicted it's free! And the only way you can become addicted is buy it illegally. Just doesn't make sense mate am sorry because I av friends who have died from all types of addictions. Smoking and drinking is legal and more people die year on year. Go down the needle exchange mate the place is a mess, imagine if it were a clinic.
And I never said celebs weren't addicted I said it's not glamourised.
The fact is they know the risks and still do it so take away the risks anyone wanting to do it then there's no deterrent

Again, you haven't read the article in the op. Other countries that have a model like this have see. reductions in the number of addicts.

It's supply and demand.

Why as a dealer would you prioritise heroin if your traditional customer base is f***ing off to a clinic every day?

There would be less demand and therefore supply would decline, meaning there's less opportunity for new addicts.

 

[Lonz]

Hold on pal. Where's the incentive to start!!!
It's not like all the successful people in the world take it.
It's not on the front page of the nationals with the headlines "MY NIGHTS WITH MODELS BOOZE AND HEROIN" ..... or me mates saying ya should of seen John in the town last neet on the scag! "Reet laugh"
Sad truth is everyone knows that as soon as you inject heroin your more than likely signing an early death certificate.
In the country's where it's given free I don't understand how you start.
Do ya go to the docs and say "I wanna score" or "I want to try it".
Or do you have to be an addict? in which case the same problems are still there!!!

They're not successful anymore, that's the point. There are countless people who have stable lives with good jobs and family who end up getting hooked on painkillers after a surgery or an accident, for example.

 

[safcsafc]

The idea that people should be forced to go to work to pay taxes to give junkies free heroin is outrageous.

The argument that they will commit crime of we don't give them free heroin is contemptible.

They will do bad things if we don't give them what they want, so we must give it to them, is complete surrender, agreeing to be perpetually held to ransom.

Few points-
What about 'junkies' who pay tax can they have it.

What if these 'junkies' reach a point where they are able to work, pay taxes and contribute to society as a result of a treatment plan that includes prescribed heroin.

No one is forced to work.

Its more about support and treatment for those wanting it rather than a surrender or being held to ransom as you claim.

 

[ned_werby]

Class read by the BBC today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Heroin

Makes a compelling argument for a Swiss like model where addicts are provided with heroin in a safe environment.

Is it? good.

 

[Lankester Merrin]

I'm not being serious.

Ah. OK.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between your real reactionary opinions and your sarcastic reactionary opinions.

 

[Frijj]

We already are paying when you break down the cost to the taxpayer for crime an disorder, prisons, and the NHS etc.

Our taxes fund the systems in place to tackle the issue, and systems in place are shit.

We also pay through the money we get in our back pocket. We'll be covering losses to shops from shoplifting on everything we buy, and increased insurance premiums to cover payouts from drug related burglaries etc.

They already commit crime, the argument is they will commit less crime if they don't need to find their habit.

I understand why you're outraged. Your outrage is the reason we aren't doing it already.

It's not a surrender, it's pragmatism.

@Hulkster is a low tax, individualist, fuck-everyone-else, conservative type.

I expect no less from him.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Ah. OK.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between your real reactionary opinions and your sarcastic reactionary opinions.

My point was that it would fulfill the criteria given.

I don't think my opinions are reactionary, I see them as radical and counter to the general consensus.

 

[haway]

So my point is how do you come dependant? Will the rate of people using it not rise? Once they are addicted it's free! And the only way you can become addicted is buy it illegally. Just doesn't make sense mate am sorry because I av friends who have died from all types of addictions. Smoking and drinking is legal and more people die year on year. Go down the needle exchange mate the place is a mess, imagine if it were a clinic.
And I never said celebs weren't addicted I said it's not glamourised.
The fact is they know the risks and still do it so take away the risks anyone wanting to do it then there's no deterrent

Not wanting to get in a long winded argument (I'm going to ) but the evidence suggests that when heroin is made safer to access (e.g. Safe injecting sites, needle exchanges) then deaths fall and there is no increase in injection rates.

I wouldn't inject heroin, nor would 99% of people and that's because they don't want to inject a drug into their body which harms them and sends them out their mind. Some people do want to do that and unfortunately some will do it no matter what we try to do.

You raise a good point regarding alcohol and smoking. However there's very good reason to think that the reason the consumption of these is so high is because of their availability, their cost and the fact they're normalised in society. Before the New Psychoactive Substances Act 1p-LSD was legal and cheap- how many people took it? Barely any, because most people have no interest in taking LSD or an analogue of it.

So returning to the issue of heroin - if what someone suggested was "legalisation" whereby heroin could be advertised and sold in shops etc. Then they're bonkers imo.

What you need is a system of regulation suitable for the drug. In the case of heroin there's good clinical evidence to suggest prescribing heroin to addicts is the best policy (which we did in the 1920's, it's not a new idea). Methadone can be helpful but unfortunately for many heroin users it just isn't enough - and as a result they supplement it with benzodiazepines; usually temazepam which is more likely to create an overdose than heroin itself.

Case study would be Portugal. Portugal didn't prescribe heroin but what they did do in circa 2001 was decriminalise all possession offences for drugs and treat it as a health issue. They also invested more in needle exchanges and educating heroin users about safer practice. The result was a 50% reduction in new HIV rates amongst injecting drug users and a 50% (I think!) reduction in rates of heroin injection. There was an increase in the consumption of cannabis, however.

In the last year in the U.K. we had the highest rate of drug deaths since records began. The majority of those (circa 80%) were from problematic drug users (eg crack cocaine/ heroin addicts). This year already there have been twice as many fentanyl deaths as there was the year prior. Fentanyl has absolutely devastated parts of the US and Canada and regrettably the evidence suggests synthetic fentanyls are making their way over here. We need to start thinking radically about how we can save people's lives or thousands of people will die.

The evidence from around the world suggests that simple abstentionist policies do little to save lives and what is needed is a pragmatic harm reduction approach. This needs to be multifaceted and would include: greater access to needle exchanges, not just exchanging needles but giving them out more easily, safe injection sites, giving heroin users naloxone and training them how to use it, providing up to date information on dangerous batches of heroin found (eg ones with fentanyls), and ultimately, imo, prescribing heroin. But the current system is not working.

For anyone interested in a really good paper on why in practice a lot of the policies which are advocated don't help heroin users the righteous dopefiend by Phillipe bourgeois is really good. It's both a book and also a shorter version in a paper but it is seriously worth reading.

 

[theinediblebulk]

Cannabanoid is an amazing word.

Have you been to Manchester recently? Did you ever try and run the gauntlet of the smackheads in Piccadilly Gardens on Market Street who were normally off their tits on weed?
Well now we have Spice Zombies.

Do you think we'd ever reach the same cultural understanding about drugs and drug use that Holland has? Not a chance in hell if our scratters are anything to go by

This is one of them posts where the poster gives it away that they too ignorant for the discussion. Smackheads off their tits on weed. Running the gauntlet? All scratters. I took heroin for about 14 years so got a canny good idea about the people who take it. But you have no f***ing clue about it. You carry on condemning those worse off than yourself, hope it makes you feel better.

 

[redgauntlet]

For the last few years I have been addicted to brake fuel. I can stop anytime.

Anti Freeze tastes better and it kills you quicker.

 

[Boz33]

They're not successful anymore, that's the point. There are countless people who have stable lives with good jobs and family who end up getting hooked on painkillers after a surgery or an accident, for example.

In which case you have to look at how doctors prescribe painkillers and all the miriad of other numbing drugs for both mind and body they seem to hand out like confetti and for how long.

 

[theinediblebulk]

It amazes me that people still think the cannabis people buy in Holland is somehow 'legal'. It is not. The cannabis you buy in the average coffee shop goes to criminal gangs as much as buying weed over here. The cannabis in Holland is mainly supplied by gangs.

People using 'legal highs' isn't a justification of making weed illegal. It's just a shit excuse.

I agree that there is more of an argument of taking drugs like heroin out of the system to get people off it than there is of legalizing more softer drugs to get people onto those drugs and away from synthetic shite.

I've never said it was legal so I don't know what point you're trying to make with me. I said they made a distinction between hard and soft drugs due to the physical and social harm they were causing. It amazes me that people don't want to focus on this and talk about loads of crap around it. But go see what happened in Colorado withw eed being made actual legal in terms of crime. You might learn something.

The idea that people should be forced to go to work to pay taxes to give junkies free heroin is outrageous.

The argument that they will commit crime of we don't give them free heroin is contemptible.

They will do bad things if we don't give them what they want, so we must give it to them, is complete surrender, agreeing to be perpetually held to ransom.

Don't do anything about it then and hope and pray none of your loved ones get caught up in it. Be shit if they did and had to deal with an attitude like yours.

 

[Some Random Guy]

In which case you have to look at how doctors prescribe painkillers and all the miriad of other numbing drugs for both mind and body they seem to hand out like confetti and for how long.

They should.

That wouldn't impact on today's addicts though.

 

[Nicky Winterwasp]

You're right. Fuck them, dirty smack head bastards. Why should we give them any help at all, f***ing wasters that they all are. Well, apart from the ones I worked with in Holland who got heroin prescribed which helped them stabilize their life and actually go to work rather than going out and stealing shit to pay for a bag of crap smack. But yeah, fuck that, let's just live them to sink instead. Fuck helping them, what a waste of time that would be.

How would a person addicted to heroin function in a normal day if they went to a centre to receive a prescribed dose? Are they able to get their hit then spaz out for an hour or so then go on with their day? This is a genuine question as I have no idea how long between taking the drug is tolerable before they start getting the come down.

 

[theinediblebulk]

It's been spelled out so many times but people don't seem to be able to make the connection. Is it because it's been ingrained in people that it needs to be punished?

Deffo. Drugs are bad man, just say no. Then the average Joe thinks they actually know all about it, when the reality is they know fuck all. Can't even move out of the social conditioning they've been brought up in to think about it practically. This thread proves it. Plenty of evidence to show this kind of approach works but fuck that, people need someone to kick further down the ladder than themselves. I'm happy I'm not a superior and morally perfect person like a few on this thread seem to think about themselves. I'm a flawed and broken person and working through that seems to have helped me develop some compassion.

 

[Some Random Guy]

How would a person addicted to heroin function in a normal day if they went to a centre to receive a prescribed dose? Are they able to get their hit then spaz out for an hour or so then go on with their day? This is a genuine question as I have no idea how long between taking the drug is tolerable before they start getting the come down.

Heroin doesn't make you "spaz out".

As for functionality it can vary massively.

If I could maintain my job I could spend £20 a day on heroin without issues, I'm sure many people do just that.

Think about the wider population, there are plenty of functional alcoholics.