Drug Addicts in London get Heroin Prescribed by NHS
Discussion
Drug addicts are being prescribed diamorphine - pure heroin - on the NHS across London.
Supporters argue a regular supply of pure heroin means addicts can build a stable life and find employment.
Some people said they were disappointed with the news: giving heroin to addicts is not tackling the route cause of their problems.
In 2000, Pauline Holcroft's daughter Rachel Whitear died at the age of 21 from a heroin overdose.
ETA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-139442...
Supporters argue a regular supply of pure heroin means addicts can build a stable life and find employment.
Some people said they were disappointed with the news: giving heroin to addicts is not tackling the route cause of their problems.
Anne Widdecome said:
You don't get someone off drugs by giving them drugs. You remove the danger of dirty needles - but not the addiction.
It costs the NHS about £14,000 to maintain an addict on heroin for a year. Dr Adrian Rogers retired GP said:
The only thing you should offer is detoxification. Drugs prevention has grown into a massive industry - costing the taxpayer huge amounts. I feel terribly sorry for addicts, but I don't believe they should have drugs provided by the taxpayer.
"Supporters of heroin prescription say this is dwarfed by the cost of crime users might otherwise commit. Experts have estimated an addict spends £45,000-a-year on average on street heroin."In 2000, Pauline Holcroft's daughter Rachel Whitear died at the age of 21 from a heroin overdose.
Pauline Holcroft said:
If my daughter had to use heroin I'd have preferred it in hospital, supervised properly along with a programme to get her off it. I can only see it as helpful. Methadone does not seem to help. In many cases people prescribed methadone go and buy heroin anyway.
I wish Rachel had been given that opportunity.
My favourite bit:I wish Rachel had been given that opportunity.
Dr Costas Agath said:
Life is not just about drugs - it's about a sunny day, lying in the grass with someone you love
ETA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-139442...
Edited by Glassman on Thursday 30th June 07:10
How the hell can it cost 14K a year?
I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
The current system clearly has not worked. I'd rather they were getting cheap/free smack rather than breaking into my car/home or robbing me in the street to fund it personally. That said, I do think it must be offered conditionally on the basis that the user sticks to a plan to get them off it and into work.
BBC said:
Former Conservative frontbencher Ann Widdecombe said: "My concern about giving heroin to addicts is you are not tackling the route cause of their problems.
'route cause' ? Edited by budgie smuggler on Thursday 30th June 09:25
CypherP said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Very much agree with this. 
Having been made to attend some "voluntary" courses by the DW&P [on pain of being signed off, signed off= no unemployment insurance, I don't get a penny from the state despite 30 yrs of contributions btw], I have seen JUST what support these wretches get from the system, 'uman rights innit?.
It would be far better if both them and their supply were controlled until they were in a position to be a benefit to society.
thinfourth2 said:
How the hell can it cost 14K a year?
I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
Don't forget to include all the police and court time spent dealing with them, which is likely to be a lot of money! That 45k just got a whole lot bigger.I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
CypherP said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Very much agree with this. They aren't out nicking so it removes police costs.
They aren't buying from dealers so that removes that problem.
I am sure there is many more benefits
It will never happen because of the obsession of our leaders with keeping the daily mail happy.
willfinch36 said:
Only way to sort it, is throw them all in a cell ,like they would in Saudi.
with no heroin.
The side effects im sure would put them off for life.
But for christs sake dont just throw tax payers money at them....
We'll start stoning women and cutting off hands next as well will we?with no heroin.
The side effects im sure would put them off for life.
But for christs sake dont just throw tax payers money at them....
thinfourth2 said:
How the hell can it cost 14K a year?
I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
It depends on other factors long term though. If the 'official' heroine in correct doses means they live until 90 being fed it whereas your average street smackhead only makes it to 30, we may end up paying more in the long run.I thought heroin was cheap as chips to produce
But even if it does cost 14k a year to give them free heroin according to the article its 45K a year if they buy it themselves off of dealers on the street.
Now I would happily place a large amount of money on the fact the 45K doesn't come from holding down a nice stable job, it comes from benefits and nicking stuff.
So its either 45K from being taken from the public via theft, insurance policies and benefits or 14K from the taxpayer via the NHS.
Even i can see which is cheaper
If the scheme hopes to allow addicts to build a satble life and get a job off the back of this, it should be part of the deal - ie you want safe regular supplies of your drug, you need to have a job and stay out of trouble.
willfinch36 said:
Only way to sort it, is throw them all in a cell ,like they would in Saudi.
with no heroin.
The side effects im sure would put them off for life.
But for christs sake dont just throw tax payers money at them....
So who exactly pays forwith no heroin.
The side effects im sure would put them off for life.
But for christs sake dont just throw tax payers money at them....
The jail
The police to catch them
The court to convict them
The police to deal with them nicking your telly
The benefits they get before they get caught
The police to catch the drug dealers
The customs officers to stop the drugs coming into the country
The army waging the war on drugs/terror in afganistan
etc
king scum! Besides it's only poor people who end up on smack so they deserve it anyway.Caulkhead said:
It depends on other factors long term though. If the 'official' heroine in correct doses means they live until 90 being fed it whereas your average street smackhead only makes it to 30, we may end up paying more in the long run.
If the scheme hopes to allow addicts to build a satble life and get a job off the back of this, it should be part of the deal - ie you want safe regular supplies of your drug, you need to have a job and stay out of trouble.
I don't what the average of age of a smackhead become a happy meal for a worm is but i suspect it is more then 30.If the scheme hopes to allow addicts to build a satble life and get a job off the back of this, it should be part of the deal - ie you want safe regular supplies of your drug, you need to have a job and stay out of trouble.
I also feel that once it is a an option to get free drugs i don't see it being as attractive smackheads would probably get bored of being a smackhead before they reach 90.
Even if the scheme allowed smackheads to stop being a monumental pain in the arse it would be a success if it allowed them to contribute then thats an even bigger benefit
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff