BBC: Why is heroin killing so many people?

Status
Not open for further replies.


Couple of really interesting points in that article for me. Amost a third of overdoses in Europe happens in the UK. We're an island over one side, pretty much as far away from the source as you can get, yet a third of overdoses happen here. The other thing is that the government pretty much made it the problem of local authorities just before they started slashing away at budgets. They couldn't give a fuck.
 
Frijj said:
I really think you need to take all emotion and morals out of it and look at it first as an economic problem

A group of people exist who cost society £X.

If have an intervention that could reduce those costs by X% and produce a net benefit £ to the state, should we not do it?

I can see why people find it hard to have any sympathy for habitual substance misusers but they exist, they will exist and they will cost the state money if not managed properly.

It might be unpalatable to consider spending money on them but it is with the intention of lowering costs overall.
Click to expand...
Hence my idea of the death penalty for smackheads.
 
200 others said:
self inflicted , no sympathy from we whatsoever
Click to expand...
So is excess alcohol, sports injuries, car crashes. Shall we stop help for every person?

ignoring the issue actually creates bigger problems in the long term which are a drain on finances, & personnel never mind the emotional cost to the patients and their families and the wider implications including crime
 
super noodles said:
Aye definitely. Prevention is better than treatment
Click to expand...

The issue might be that the current heroin addicts need to be managed off their addiction or at least into a structure where they aren't committing crimes and constantly in need of medical care, as part of a strategy of prevention of the next load of potential addicts ever taking it up. The latter part is if they lose their customer base the illegal suppliers will lose the incentive to keep supplying it and the only way to get heroin will be from doctors who aren't in the business of supplying it to anyone new.
 
Boz33 said:
And if they never come off it? What incentive is there to stop it's free after all? Also if there's just 1 hit a day what's to say they don't want 2 or 3 or 4 hits a day, where they going to get the other hits or the money for them? I assume we up the times we let them get free hits or the crimes won't lessen
If say we did take this model up do we do the same for coke, alcohol even fags. They are all highly.addictivewhat makes skagheads any less needy than the other groups?
Click to expand...

We have support in place for fags (I assume you mean tobacco and not homosexuality here) and alcohol.

The support and policies we have in place for tobacco are working on a population level, maybe not as fast as we'd like but things are moving in the right direction.

Not convinced alcohol support is working, I think there's certainly a solid argument for MUP. I didn't create a thread about alcohol though. :p

Other drug support exists, crack and opiates service cost shit loads more though.

We have support for crack and opiates, I've spent a good chunk of time working on the way those services are delivered over the last year or so. There are loads of reasons it's ineffective, the article I linked to in the op covers a lot of that.

I can understand why someone would be against society "paying for people to take heroin". I'd argue we already do though, in crime and disorder costs, in increased insurance premiums, in the burden to social services, in the cost to NHS and third sector commissioned contracts, in prison services, in benefits etc.

Let's say right now it costs society £50k a year (number pulled out of my arse ) to pay for a smack head that goes out mugging grannies, shoplifting, and burgling houses to pay a criminal for drugs. Surely it's better for society to spend £25k a year (again, number pulled out of my arse) to pay for a smack head that doesn't goes out mugging grannies, shoplifting, and burgling houses to pay a criminal for drugs because they are covered?

It's not ideal by a long shot, it seems like a model that could be better for everyone apart from criminals.

Doggerland Mackem said:
The idea is you bring them into a treatment programme to wean them off.
Click to expand...
A surprising amount of methodone users have been provided with support for 5+ years, I have access to the national drug treatment measuring service. Unfortunately I'm unsure on where I stand data protection wise so won't be providing figures.
 
Last edited:
Some Random Guy said:
We have support in place for fags (I assume you mean tobacco and not homosexuality here) and alcohol.

The support and policies we have in place for tobacco are working on a population level, maybe not as fast as we'd like but things are moving in the right direction.

Not convinced alcohol support is working, I think there's certainly a solid argument for MUP. I didn't create a thread about alcohol though. :p

Other drug support exists, crack and opiates service cost shit loads more though.

We have support for crack and opiates, I've spent a good chunk of time working on the way those services are delivered over the last year or so. There are loads of reasons it's ineffective, the article I linked to in the op covers a lot of that.

I can understand why someone would be against society "paying for people to take heroin". I'd argue we already do though, in crime and disorder costs, in increased insurance premiums, in the burden to social services, in the cost to NHS and third sector commissioned contracts, in prison services, in benefits etc.

Let's say right now it costs society £50k a year (number pulled out of my arse ) to pay for a smack head that goes out mugging grannies, shoplifting, and burgling houses to pay a criminal for drugs. Surely it's better for society to spend £25k a year (again, number pulled out of my arse) to pay for a smack head that doesn't goes out mugging grannies, shoplifting, and burgling houses to pay a criminal for drugs because they are covered?

It's not ideal by a long shot, it seems like a model that could be better for everyone apart from criminals.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how a smackhead gets their smack, it won't make a difference to the burden on Social Services - they'll always lose their kids I'd imagine ?
 
i would expect that a lot of female addicts are under the control of pimps. a legalised route would take them straight off the streets and put them in a position to make some choices as the pimp wont have a hold on them for drug money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top