Treatment for Heroin Users

catallus

Hi, I can't find a recent thread on this issue.

I'd like to know what people think about what the best or most effective treatment for users of heroin should be.

I know the subject of drugs can be pretty emotive issue for many people, but I think an objective or rational view is necessary if society ever hopes to help people who find themselves addicted to this or other drugs, but I'd like to just keep it with Heroin.

My own belief is that nobody wants to be addicted to heroin. Anyone I know who is or was on it says it's the worst stuff to be on.

I'm open to correction on this, but I think it's in or around 11'000 people who are on the drug at any given time in this country, and the main avenue of treatment is through the prescribing of a set dose of methadone, or physeptone or whatever one wants to call it.

Now, as far as I can see, this treatment is designed to wean a user off the heroin, but the rate of backsliding by those who are prescribed heroin-substitutes to the real thing is very high.

I'm told that this is because methadone doesn't give the high but keeps all the lows of heroin. I've seen men and women on methadone treatment and if they don't get their prescription for whatever reason they just completely cave, they get serious uncontrollable tremors, basically becoming a human wreck.

If I were an addict I know I'd find it hard to keep up a treatment which was so harsh. But my question is: Why not just give the users all the heroin they want? Customs seize a shedload of it each year. So give the user the stuff which keeps them "well". Such a policy could entail whatever restrictions you want, even making them take the stuff under observation and holding down some sort of job or course or whatever, just to make sure they don't go off and sell the stuff.

Now, I'm not saying legalise the stuff. Far from it. We don't need this stuff to be as available as drink. But the point of giving the hopelessly addicted user a supply of what he/she needs would be to enable them to exist without having to depend on robbery and other crime to feed their addiction and ergo it would take a lot of money from the black market.

I know there a good few posters on here who would have an experience of these people who need help. I think we're not doing enough to get them out of the hole they're in. But I think the current methadone system is a badly conceived idea. I could be totally wrong, just looking for an opinion on it.

J_E

Really think it's a bad idea to post this on AH...not going to be taken seriously by a lot of posters.

catallus wrote: »

If I were an addict I know I'd find it hard to keep up a treatment which was so harsh. But my question is: Why not just give the users all the heroin they want? Customs seize a shedload of it each year. So give the user the stuff which keeps them "well". Such a policy could entail whatever restrictions you want, even making them take the stuff under observation and holding down some sort of job or course or whatever, just to make sure they don't go off and sell the stuff.

Now, I'm not saying legalise the stuff. Far from it. We don't need this stuff to be as available as drink. But the point of giving the hopelessly addicted user a supply of what he/she needs would be to enable them to exist without having to depend on robbery and other crime to feed their addiction and ergo it would take a lot of money from the black market.

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on addiction treatment but I think this is a bad idea despite seeing your logic. If you were to give a heroin user as much supply as they want they will easily top themselves and die from an overdose. It's a little different from decriminalising the likes of cannabis.

You could argue that some heroin addicts are past saving and will never stop taking it but I think this sort of action would result in a lot of needless deaths. I don't know the statistics on the effectiveness of methadone treatments but at least it wards off users from the likes of needle sharing and criminal activity. Limiting use will only encourage a user to find more elsewhere.

An alternative to your solution would be to have needle banks and designated buildings where users can be supplied with sterile equipment and counselling should they look for it. I believe there are places like this out there in the world, and they don't aim to encourage use but provide a means to an end until a user is ready to take the first step to recovery.

catallus

I get your point about not encouraging use but from what I can see of heroin users, they need no encouragement at all, they are hopelessly addicted, forcing them to turn to crime to pay the suppliers.

It's not about saving anybody, it's about minimising the negative effect they have on society by providing them with what they need. Heroin will mess you up, everyone knows this, but sadly there's no shortage of people willing to dope themselves up, get themselves into a hole and then rob and thieve their way to the next hit.

Look, I'm not a bleeding heart, by any definition; another alternative would be to surreptitiously intercept the supply and put strychnine into the supply. Problem solved in a week. But only until next week.

I'm just throwing the idea of state-supplied heroin out there. Like I said, there's about 11'000 users out there. There are about 200'000 people being prescribed anti-depressants. So it's not a logistical problem.

My reasoning is: What addict wouldn't avail of it? Free State-sanctioned gear vs €25 a bag of dealer-cut stuff? It'd stop criminal activity and needle sharing immediately. I know what you're talking about with the needle centres but that was a last ditch effort to prevent the further spread of hepatitis etc..

J_E

catallus wrote: »

I get your point about not encouraging use but from what I can see of heroin users, they need no encouragement at all, they are hopelessly addicted, forcing them to turn to crime to pay the suppliers.

You're essentially slapping the face of every user who has successfully come clean. Your post insinutates that all addicts are a waste and will never make a change in their life. By making it 'State-supplied' you're basically nulling any chance of a user to possibly get off it when it's on tap. We should be supporting people who want to get off it, not trying to throw them into a pit with one another. Now I'm getting the impression you're one of these 'burn the junkies' types and I think that attitude does nothing but wrong. Have you experience or interaction with addicts?

catallus

No no no, I'm certainly not a "burn the junkies" type. You may be taking my strychnine suggestion a bit too seriously.

I have spoken to users who tell me it's a "demon-drug" "bad ****", basically the worst thing ever. They don't want to be addicted, but they are.

I'm not insinuating they are all a waste; quite the opposite. But the reason they seem to be such a drain on society is because the law gets them at every turn they try to take out of the hell they are in.

They can make a change in their life, but not through the current system of methadone: some of the users who have taken that have told me it's worse than the heroin.

I don't know what pit you are speaking of. But you're right, we should support those who wish to get off it, and I'm not an expert in addiction either, but it seems to me to be a bit more complicated than waking up one morning and saying, right! I'm off the gear!

.Henry Sellers.

When's the wedding?

Cereal Number

Big hairy mickey

scudzilla

Great Idea, and have every bag head in the EU descending on Dublin.

Fcuk 'em, if they wanna stick that **** in there veins then let them have to crawl on their knees in the gutter to get it

certifiedcrepe

Thinly veiled "I'm not on heroin" thread

J_E

scudzilla wrote: »

Great Idea, and have every bag head in the EU descending on Dublin.

Fcuk 'em, if they wanna stick that **** in there veins then let them have to crawl on their knees in the gutter to get it

Looks like the AH mob have arrived...

OP, if you want a serious discussion on the thread I suggest you take it elsewhere because you won't find it here.

catallus

By elsewhere you must mean off-line

I know it's an echo chamber but I would hope it is possible to have some open-minded people just give their opinion in a readable format.

I know there's a good few posters who would have an opinion one way or the other.

"Discussion" is a heavy term to use for what happens on the internet, but I really do think this is an important issue, it affects lots of people, the families and friends of those who find themselves in such a hole not least.

If we can help the small number of people who need it through a progressive policy then why not throw it out there for online debate, such as it is.

Ruudi_Mentari

If it's not that much a debilitating factor, for them and indeed has become their major motivation then it's gonna be hard.

and I guess that's how it goes I mean I had a pal stay over often and whilst he'd sip his meth in front of me taking a half hour to come out of the toilet was a bit of a suspicious. And that was over as number of yrs...... and that's how I left him but I know an uncle came off it, eventually.

Cavehill Red

Here's my radical solution: GIVE THEM SOME HEROIN.
Let me break that one down for you - give, as in, for free. Some heroin, as in, actual pharma-grade, unpolluted heroin.
That would achieve the following results:
1. An immediate collapse in crime as junkies no longer need to steal or burgle to make 300 quid a day to buy their junk.
2. An immediate and massive collapse in the income of drug dealers, drug importers and other associated ne'er-do-wells.
3. The liberation of a large number of police to pursue other crime prevention and detection duties.
4. A massive saving to the health service in terms of the costs of dealing with overdoses.
5. A massive saving in terms of money spent on pointless methadone schemes.
6. A massive saving in justice costs, especially prison habitation.

So, I reckon we should just open up a few places where we give junkies free heroin and let them sit there on the nod, nice and safe and monitored and get their highs, and I reckon the taxpayer should pay for it all, because let's face it, it would still be only a tiny fraction of the cost of what we're paying now, in health, maintenance schemes, justice, prison and social costs. Don't believe me? Go google Portugal and get back to me. It works, and it's the only sensible answer: don't treat them. Just give them the heroin.

orestes

Methadone doesn't treat heroin addiction, it just stops the body going ape-**** from withdrawl symptoms. It's not supposed to get you high on it, it's to stabalise your body while you wean yourself off a highly addictive substance, the same way people are weaned off high doses of painkillers. So methadone isn't really a treatment, it's a chemical substitute for the body while the person is getting treatment.

While I can see where you're coming from, I don't think it would do anything for anybody who wants to get off heroin and would just sweep the problem under the carpet by getting addicts off the streets and meaning less petty crime. Good idea from a civic point of view I guess, but I don't think it would do anything to fight addiction or help anybody who wants to get clean unfortunately. Although if methadone were still available to addicts wanting to get clean aswell I think it might actually be a workable idea.

JonEBGud

Any person who is addicted is addicted.
It takes quite an effort to go back to
normal.
Ask smokers for a tip. . .

catallus

JonEBGud wrote: »

Any person who is addicted is addicted.
It takes quite an effort to go back to
normal.
Ask smokers for a tip. . .

Some would argue it takes a bit of effort to get addicted in the first place.

orestes wrote: »

Methadone doesn't treat heroin addiction, it just stops the body going ape-**** from withdrawl symptoms. It's not supposed to get you high on it, it's to stabalise your body while you wean yourself off a highly addictive substance, the same way people are weaned off high doses of painkillers. So methadone isn't really a treatment, it's a chemical substitute for the body while the person is getting treatment.

While I can see where you're coming from, I don't think it would do anything for anybody who wants to get off heroin and would just sweep the problem under the carpet by getting addicts off the streets and meaning less petty crime. Good idea from a civic point of view I guess, but I don't think it would do anything to fight addiction or help anybody who wants to get clean unfortunately. Although if methadone were still available to addicts wanting to get clean aswell I think it might actually be a workable idea.

Getting addicts off the streets is not "sweeping the problem under the carpet". It is a civic solution; that's what I'm talking about; this idea that if heroin was freely available under strict circumstances it would make it harder for addicts to give up is wrong; it's a slap in the face to every alcoholic who has given up the booze. And also that argument ignores the easy availability of the drug as the situation stands.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Here's my radical solution: GIVE THEM SOME HEROIN.
Let me break that one down for you - give, as in, for free. Some heroin, as in, actual pharma-grade, unpolluted heroin.
That would achieve the following results:
1. An immediate collapse in crime as junkies no longer need to steal or burgle to make 300 quid a day to buy their junk.
2. An immediate and massive collapse in the income of drug dealers, drug importers and other associated ne'er-do-wells.
3. The liberation of a large number of police to pursue other crime prevention and detection duties.
4. A massive saving to the health service in terms of the costs of dealing with overdoses.
5. A massive saving in terms of money spent on pointless methadone schemes.
6. A massive saving in justice costs, especially prison habitation.

So, I reckon we should just open up a few places where we give junkies free heroin and let them sit there on the nod, nice and safe and monitored and get their highs, and I reckon the taxpayer should pay for it all, because let's face it, it would still be only a tiny fraction of the cost of what we're paying now, in health, maintenance schemes, justice, prison and social costs. Don't believe me? Go google Portugal and get back to me. It works, and it's the only sensible answer: don't treat them. Just give them the heroin.

My thinking exactly, thank you.

Smidge

Just my two cents.......

There was an excellent community(ie not private,montessori) playschool where I used to live in Dublin.
Great people and great with the kids but they never got a penny extra towards improvements ie a swing, slide(of which they had nothing of the sort even though there was a large "play-tarmac" area) etc.

It has since been demolished and a centre for Addicts and their families has replaced it.

NO EXPENSE HAS BEEN SPARED ON THIS NEW CENTRE

Maybe, just maybe, if they had invested more in pre-schools and early services for kids we would need less treatment facilities later on for the people who fall through the cracks.

catallus

Smidge, That's a good point but the fact is that it's not kids falling through the cracks, it's adults and young people deciding to take heroin and then finding themselves in the hole they can't get out of. They do it for their own reasons, however banal or ludicrous we deem them to be. That's not what this thread is about.

Ask yourself why no expense was spared... was it to fulfill a quango, to give jobs to the HSE? Why would anyone who had eyes continue the cycle of addict/patient/addict.

I don't think education or rehabilitation is the issue when it comes to heroin users.

orestes

catallus wrote: »

Getting addicts off the streets is not "sweeping the problem under the carpet". It is a civic solution; that's what I'm talking about;

I think you misunderstood what I meant by sweeping it under the carpet. Free heroin is all good for active addicts who want to keep using and keeping them off the streets, that's why I agreed that it's a good civic idea, but I meant treating addicts who want to get well. Methadone helps recovering addicts deal with the physical withdrawl, it's like a very specific prescription painkiller. What about addicts who are trying to quit and their only options are heroin or nothing?

catallus wrote: »

this idea that if heroin was freely available under strict circumstances it would make it harder for addicts to give up is wrong; it's a slap in the face to every alcoholic who has given up the booze. And also that argument ignores the easy availability of the drug as the situation stands.

I disagree. Unlimited free access to anything that a person is addicted to will make it harder for them to hit bottom and make it harder for them to quit.

catallus

If someone wants to quit then the option should be there, methadone etc, if they want, but this willful and tortuous procedure in place now is at odds with every progressive and helpful idea and ideal I can think of apart from the dreams of doctors and psychiatrists who are making a mint from the imprisonment of the weak in the labyrinth of the law.

Cavehill Red

The evidence suggests that making people hit rock bottom has major social consequences and costs. Recidivism among addicts is also so high as to make the utopia of an addict-free society unfeasible and unrealistic. The alternative is harm reduction and management. That's what Portugal has chosen to do, with astonishing success, for over a decade now.

Smidge

catallus wrote: »

Smidge, That's a good point but the fact is that it's not kids falling through the cracks, it's adults and young people deciding to take heroin and then finding themselves in the hole they can't get out of. They do it for their own reasons, however banal or ludicrous we deem them to be. That's not what this thread is about.

Ask yourself why no expense was spared... was it to fulfill a quango, to give jobs to the HSE? Why would anyone who had eyes continue the cycle of addict/patient/addict.

I don't think education or rehabilitation is the issue when it comes to heroin users.

All due respect Cat I think you have missed my point.
If there was an interest paid in kids in underprivileged areas(that was where the preschool was in my example)maybe these kids would have been made to feel like they were "worthwhile".

You don't just wake up at 16 or 18 or whatever and become a junkie, there have been maannnyyy long years of neglect(of whatever description)before this happens.

It only takes one person to intervene in a childs life to put them on the right path.

orestes

catallus wrote: »

If someone wants to quit then the option should be there, methadone etc, if they want, but this willful and tortuous procedure in place now is at odds with every progressive and helpful idea and ideal I can think of apart from the dreams of doctors and psychiatrists who are making a mint from the imprisonment of the weak in the labyrinth of the law.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here or what this is supposed to mean. It sounds brilliant, lots of nice buzzwords and lofty phrases and all that, but what does it mean?

Hank Scorpio

Phew! I haven't felt that good since Archie Gemmill scored against Holland in 1978!

catallus

Smidge wrote: »

All due respect Cat I think you have missed my point.
If there was an interest paid in kids in underprivileged areas(that was where the preschool was in my example)maybe these kids would have been made to feel like they were "worthwhile".

You don't just wake up at 16 or 18 or whatever and become a junkie, there have been maannnyyy long years of neglect(of whatever description)before this happens.

It only takes one person to intervene in a childs life to put them on the right path.

No, you wake up when you're 24 or 36 and your circumstances ( a partner leaves you, or you decide you don't want to or can't carry on in this world) and somebody offers you an antidote in the form of a drug and you take it because you can't see any other way out.

I get what you're saying: it's hard work to become an addict, but the hard road is easily taken when the world is against you; which one of us here can say we are so intelligent that we never made the wrong decision; to throw away a person because they are chemically and clinically dependent on heroin is wrong.

It's not about the kids. The law protects them well enough.

Cavehill Red

orestes wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here or what this is supposed to mean. It sounds brilliant, lots of nice buzzwords and lofty phrases and all that, but what does it mean?

It means our current response to the heroin problem serves doctors (and to an extent other professionals like the police and prison officers) rather than those addicted, and suggests that a more progressive solution that actually addresses the addicts rather than the bank accounts of non-addicts ought to be found.

Smidge

catallus wrote: »

No, you wake up when you're 24 or 36 and your circumstances ( a partner leaves you, or you decide you don't want to or can't carry on in this world) and somebody offers you an antidote in the form of a drug and you take it because you can't see any other way out.

I get what you're saying: it's hard work to become an addict, but the hard road is easily taken when the world is against you; which one of us here can say we are so intelligent that we never made the wrong decision; to throw away a person because they are chemically and clinically dependent on heroin is wrong.

It's not about the kids. The law protects them well enough.

Heroin addicts who become so later in life are in the minority.

I'm talking about the majority who become addicts not through adult problems(ie 24 or 36 years of age) but through years of psychological,emotional,physical and social neglect as a child as whose world view is totally skewed, so much so that they feel they are worthless from a very young age.

If a child feels like that, where else is there for them to go?

Also, if you think the law in this country protects kids, you are fooling yourself.
It doesn't.
I see kids on a regular basis who should NOT be in their parents care

catallus

Well Smidge, I'll disagree with you on this point. Abuse of the mind and body of young people might be a catalyst for them to venture into drugs, but the same could be said for any drug.

Anyway, my point in the OP is about how to help them, not how to prevent it (which we never can)

Czarcasm

catallus wrote: »

Well Smidge, I'll disagree with you on this point. Abuse of the mind and body of young people might be a catalyst for them to venture into drugs, but the same could be said for any drug.

Anyway, my point in the OP is about how to help them, not how to prevent it (which we never can)

You're wrong. You're even more wrong with your give heroin addicts free heroin policy. You stated in your OP they wanted to get off smack, heroin, whatever, then suggest giving it to them for free because they'll never get off it?

I have successfully gotten people off heroin in the past and in my voluntary work I'm practically surrounded by heroin addicts and other types of drug users. You want to know what the best way to get them off heroin is?

It's not methodone subs or giving them free heroin, etc, it's letting them go cold turkey, letting them get wrecked, let their body clean itself out, then be there to support them and motivate them and not just dismiss them as hopeless and lost causes.

Cavehill Red

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's not methodone subs or giving them free heroin, etc, it's letting them go cold turkey, letting them get wrecked, let their body clean itself out, then be there to support them and motivate them and not just dismiss them as hopeless and lost causes.

Nonsense. The relapse rate for going cold turkey is approx 80% of addicts - in the first month.

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nonsense. The relapse rate for going cold turkey is approx 80% of addicts - in the first month.

I must have dealt with the other 20% so.

No, please, don't go linking statistics, figures and surveys, I'll tell you straight out now I couldn't care less about figures on paper without any context of each individual human being behind them.

Cavehill Red

Czarcasm wrote: »

I must have dealt with the other 20% so.

Colour me sceptical about your undocumented miracle cure. I have a nagging concern it probably involves Jesus. Am I right?

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, please, don't go linking statistics, figures and surveys, I'll tell you straight out now I couldn't care less about figures on paper without any context of each individual human being behind them.

If ever a post deserved one, yours does: :rolleyes:

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Colour me sceptical about your undocumented miracle cure. I have a nagging concern it probably involves Jesus. Am I right?

You'd be wrong Cavehill.

If ever a post deserved one, yours does: :rolleyes:

A rolleyes icon? Really, how juvenile.


Prevention, as Smidge suggested, would be a far better course of action than your Portuguese model.

I hate when posters draw comparisons with other countries because even the likes of Portugal is a world apart from Ireland in terms of it's culture, social structure and economics.

You can't just cherry pick and choose like that.

Cavehill Red

And do you know what I hate? People spoofing about something as serious as heroin addiction without offering a shred of evidence to back up their assertions, who actively spurn the actual facts and data, and reject successful models from a nearby country on undisclosed but allegedly crucial cultural differences.

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And do you know what I hate? People spoofing about something as serious as heroin addiction without offering a shred of evidence to back up their assertions, who actively spurn the actual facts and data, and reject successful models from a nearby country on undisclosed but allegedly crucial cultural differences.

Oh I'm sorry, did I owe you some explanation or something?

If you're waiting for Jesus to appear he's out the back of the gaff getting nailed.

Like any poster here I can only base my opinion on my own experience. I don't care to base my opinion on a study from a country I know fannyadams else about only what my Portuguese friend could tell me, and what she tells me is economically Portugal is in the shìtter, worse than Ireland.

You cannot import a model that you say works on paper, and try and adapt it to suit a totally different culture and economy.

Free heroin doesn't work if you want to get people off heroin. It works even less if you're trying to prevent them from using heroin in the first place.

mikemac1

Can we take the treatment centres out of the city centres?

Business aren't paying rates to be surrounded by these clients hanging around all day

Cavehill Red

Czarcasm wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, did I owe you some explanation or something?

Something fact-based would be lovely, ta.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Like any poster here I can only base my opinion on my own experience.

Or, and this is just a thought, you could base it on the carefully-documented experiences of others, especially those that have been researched, studied and presented, following a peer review process, in medical journals.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You cannot import a model that you say works on paper, and try and adapt it to suit a totally different culture and economy.

It doesn't work 'on paper'. It works in fact, and has done for well over a decade.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Free heroin doesn't work if you want to get people off heroin.

Getting people off heroin is what doesn't work, because as I said, 80% will be back on it within a month, and a proportion of those will actually die because their tolerance will have dropped in the interim. Getting people off heroin is almost more likely to kill them than it is to permanently get them off heroin. So it's time to stop thinking about getting people off heroin and start thinking about how to reduce the levels of harm they do to themselves and society.

Odysseus

Czarcasm wrote: »

I must have dealt with the other 20% so.

No, please, don't go linking statistics, figures and surveys, I'll tell you straight out now I couldn't care less about figures on paper without any context of each individual human being behind them.

What about those users taking benzos? Do your place of work help the go cold turkey too? As I'm sure you know this is dangerous.

I love to see clients get clean, however, for most of them this is a current solution.

Work with them while on meth for years if that is what it takes, when they are ready to detox, do it correctly. Have medical support, do a structured detox.

If they are in such a position that a drug free life is not an option we should be looking at drugs like diamorphine-heroin.

Addicts need support programmes all of them, not just the small; amount that are currently ready to give up drugs.

I have to honest, if I have my way centres who promote cold turkey with heroin users who are dependant on benzos would be shut down. I have seen too many people damaged by untrained people.

You may or may not be trained i.e. medic, psych, nurse etc. I don't know, but this isn't about you personally. It is about the people I have see damaged by people who convinced addicts they where ready for detox when they where not.

Often these places hire people in recovery, that is great, but being in recovery only tells you about your addiction. The people in recovery I work with when off to be trained in order to work in the area.

As I said I would close down centers who detox people with no medical back up, I would have them limited to support only and that would be only with fully trained staff.

Chuck Stone

Czarcasm wrote: »

please, don't go linking statistics, figures and surveys, I'll tell you straight out now I couldn't care less about figures on paper without any context of each individual human being behind them.

Ah yes. Forget all that fancy shmancy empiricism with its annoying quantitative data.

Jesus...

Odysseus

mikemac1 wrote: »

Can we take the treatment centres out of the city centres?

Business aren't paying rates to be surrounded by these clients hanging around all day

Businesses have no right to interfer in how people access medical treatment.


Most treatment centers have catchment areas which mean you only get treated there if you live in that area.

There is only centre one in the city that has an open catchment area IIRC. I used to work in Tallaght, I would often see the clients from there in town, so they where not there because they get their treatment there.

So just because an addict hangs out in town, it does not mean they are treated there.

What do you want? Move the problem somewhere else? How about we offer better treatment and couple that with better policing?

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Something fact-based would be lovely, ta.

I can't offer you any facts Cavehill because I can't offer you anything but personal anecdotes.

Or, and this is just a thought, you could base it on the carefully-documented experiences of others, especially those that have been researched, studied and presented, following a peer review process, in medical journals.

But then my opinion wouldn't be based on my experience. Experience that says you can prove or disprove anything with statistics, and interpret data sets a hundred different ways, but statistics will never tell you anything else about the person behind the "+1".

It doesn't work 'on paper'. It works in fact, and has done for well over a decade.

Are people still using heroin? Then what you call working and what I call working are two very different things.

Getting people off heroin is what doesn't work, because as I said, 80% will be back on it within a month, and a proportion of those will actually die because their tolerance will have dropped in the interim. Getting people off heroin is almost more likely to kill them than it is to permanently get them off heroin.

The above is probably the only thing we'll agree on, but it's a start.

So it's time to stop thinking about getting people off heroin and start thinking about how to reduce the levels of harm they do to themselves and society.

It's time Cavehill to start thinking about how we can help people to avoid thinking of trying it in the first place. It's not just the lower classes in society that heroin addicts come from. They're just the most visible element.

Decriminalising drugs does nothing to get to the root cause of why a person got themselves in that position. It's far more effective to deal with the root cause within the individual, than it is to enable their addiction to temporary relief.

Conor Bourke

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's time Cavehill to start thinking about how we can help people to avoid thinking of trying it in the first place. It's not just the lower classes in society that heroin addicts come from. They're just the most visible element.

Decriminalising drugs does nothing to get to the root cause of why a person got themselves in that position. It's far more effective to deal with the root cause within the individual, than it is to enable their addiction to temporary relief.

Prevention is better than cure is what you're trying to say? While fundamentally I agree, you cannot ignore the swathe of current addicts who still require treatment. How do you propose they are dealt with? Or do you wish for their treatment to be withdrawn entirely?

Cavehill Red

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't offer you any facts Cavehill because I can't offer you anything but personal anecdotes.

No thanks. I prefer facts.

Czarcasm wrote: »

But then my opinion wouldn't be based on my experience. Experience that says you can prove or disprove anything with statistics, and interpret data sets a hundred different ways, but statistics will never tell you anything else about the person behind the "+1".

I don't care about your experience. I don't particularly care about the addicts who make up the statistics either. What I do care about is society, and the cost of addiction as currently (mis)managed to society, both financially and socially. You're desperately keen to avoid a fact-based discussion, but I suspect you'll find that pretty much everyone else would rather base the discussion on facts than on your comic anecdotes.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Are people still using heroin? Then what you call working and what I call working are two very different things.

Of course. What I call working works. What you call working is an unachievable utopia that will never happen. There will be people using heroin until the end of time.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's time Cavehill to start thinking about how we can help people to avoid thinking of trying it in the first place. It's not just the lower classes in society that heroin addicts come from. They're just the most visible element.

That's another discussion. Even if you could entirely eradicate people starting on heroin (and you can't), I don't want to wait 40 years before we deal with the problem we currently have, which is existing addicts, and their behaviour, and the harm they cause themselves and others.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Decriminalising drugs does nothing to get to the root cause of why a person got themselves in that position. It's far more effective to deal with the root cause within the individual, than it is to enable their addiction to temporary relief.

No one mentioned decriminalising drugs. Again, go google Portugal's drugs policy if you can get over your allergy to facts.

1ZRed

certifiedcrepe wrote: »

Thinly veiled "I'm not on heroin" thread

Well la de da!

Hopsin

Read some of the first page.... so maybe this was posted inbetween... But emmm

What happens, when all the junkies (no matter addicted or not) leave their dealers and all come to the government for their fix. Then the dealers go out of business (well the heroin business anyway, lets not forget all the other wonderful drugs they will continue to sell). Once dealers go out of business we will stop having huge quantites of heroin we got for free from drug raids and will have to go looking for it ourselves.

Also, where do you stop? I know a lot of people hopelessly hooked on cannabis? And they are out robbing and mugging people to get their fixes. Do we start supplying them? What about people hooked on cocaine? Crack? Crystal meth (if it ever gets a hold)?

And what kind of message does this send to potential users? It sounds a lot like the current setup we constantly hear about- young teenage girl gets pregnant, poor thing, give her a nice big house, and sort her out with a load of money every week.

I cant see this system working.

not yet

Story buddy would ya have a smoke on you.....

Cavehill Red

Hopsin wrote: »

What happens, when all the junkies (no matter addicted or not) leave their dealers and all come to the government for their fix. Then the dealers go out of business (well the heroin business anyway, lets not forget all the other wonderful drugs they will continue to sell). Once dealers go out of business we will stop having huge quantites of heroin we got for free from drug raids and will have to go looking for it ourselves.

Heroin is not an expensive drug. It's used every day in our hospitals, and there is no problem in the health service getting enough to supply every junkie in Ireland out of the money they currently use to give a small number of them treatments that don't work and methadone that they don't want.

Hopsin wrote: »

Also, where do you stop? I know a lot of people hopelessly hooked on cannabis? And they are out robbing and mugging people to get their fixes. Do we start supplying them? What about people hooked on cocaine? Crack? Crystal meth (if it ever gets a hold)?

No, you don't know anyone hopelessly hooked on cannabis, as it is proven impossible to become physiologically addicted to it. You don't know anyone out robbing and mugging to get 'fixes' of cannabis because stoners are simply too demotivated to bother. Your hyperbole would work much better if you restricted your query to cocaine and other hard drugs, to which the answer is, you stop with heroin, since it is the drug which causes the most significant social harm.

Hopsin wrote: »

And what kind of message does this send to potential users? It sounds a lot like the current setup we constantly hear about- young teenage girl gets pregnant, poor thing, give her a nice big house, and sort her out with a load of money every week.

It only sounds like that if you get all your messages from the Daily Mail. It seems almost superfluous to point out that teenage pregnant girls are not given big houses and loads of money weekly, but I suppose if you were the sort of person who believes that they are, then you might be credulous enough to think that people would deliberately embark on an addiction to heroin in order to get something for free.

KyussBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

But then my opinion wouldn't be based on my experience. Experience that says you can prove or disprove anything with statistics, and interpret data sets a hundred different ways, but statistics will never tell you anything else about the person behind the "+1".

Really, someone with this kind of bonkers view towards statistics (which play a critically important role in guiding medical research and policy), should never be in a position of treatment/guidance for another person, with medically significant issues.

Using the same argument, you can pour doubt on just about every aspect of any field of science, or on any established facts we take for granted today; it's ridiculous. The kind of argument a homeopath would use to justify their treatments, in the face of overwhelming evidence against their effectiveness.

Hopsin

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, you don't know anyone hopelessly hooked on cannabis, as it is proven impossible to become physiologically addicted to it. You don't know anyone out robbing and mugging to get 'fixes' of cannabis because stoners are simply too demotivated to bother. Your hyperbole would work much better if you restricted your query to cocaine and other hard drugs, to which the answer is, you stop with heroin, since it is the drug which causes the most significant social harm.

Listen I dont care what it says on paper. I know a lot of teens around here that are out robbing from shops/people and spending all the profits on weed and drink. But of course, thats not going to be in any kind of scientific journal. So your just going to keep telling me Im wrong, and that theres no proof this is happening and of course, I have no way to back up my "lies" so Im not even gonna bother.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It only sounds like that if you get all your messages from the Daily Mail. It seems almost superfluous to point out that teenage pregnant girls are not given big houses and loads of money weekly, but I suppose if you were the sort of person who believes that they are, then you might be credulous enough to think that people would deliberately embark on an addiction to heroin in order to get something for free.

I guess that bit just went over your head then :rolleyes: I know way too many single mothers and I know exactly the kinda houses they are living in. But I also see the way a lot of people on here think of them and seem to think they are living like millionaires. By giving out free heroin you are going to start the same thing.

pickarooney

I don't think you can tackle heroin addiction with more heroin. People presumably become addicted to heroin because their lives are in bits anyway and it's the only source of release. It's not as though people aren't aware of the lows of the drug and wander blindfolded into an addiction to the drug. Likewise if someone really wants to come clean, they will.

Cavehill Red

Hopsin wrote: »

Listen I dont care what it says on paper. I know a lot of teens around here that are out robbing from shops/people and spending all the profits on weed and drink. But of course, thats not going to be in any kind of scientific journal. So your just going to keep telling me Im wrong, and that theres no proof this is happening and of course, I have no way to back up my "lies" so Im not even gonna bother.

That's vote number two for No Facts. Is this allergy contagious because I do not want to catch it?

Hopsin wrote: »

I guess that bit just went over your head then :rolleyes: I know way too many single mothers and I know exactly the kinda houses they are living in. But I also see the way a lot of people on here think of them and seem to think they are living like millionaires. By giving out free heroin you are going to start the same thing.

Grow up. No single mother lives in a mansion, unless she's a self-made millionaire. Certainly the state is not housing single mothers on benefits in mansions, nor are the benefits some sort of fortune. Of course, you don't like facts, so this will go right over your head.
I can only repeat, if you think that offering free and safe heroin to addicts will lead to people taking up addiction as a lifestyle choice just to get some free stuff, then I have a large bridge in London to sell you.