QuoteDrug experts are calling for a nationwide network of shooting galleries where heroin addicts can go to inject themselves safely.

An independent expert group has recommended the government expand an existing heroin pilot study.

It follows four years of trials in Brighton, Darlington and London where many areas showed a reduction in crime and a fall in the street sale of heroin.

Proponents of medical prescription of heroin say helping addicts get fixes improves their health and deprives street dealers and violent criminal gangs of funding.

They argue it removes the glamour from a lifestyle of drug abuse, instead treating addiction as a medical problem that needs treatment.

Countries such as Switzerland, Holland and Germany have already prescribed the drug with positive results.

But critics say the taxpayer should not be asked to pay for heroin when cash cannot be found for drugs to treat illnesses such as Alzheimers

More... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090915/tuk-experts-give-addicts-heroin-on-the-n-45dbed5_1.html

Anyone still against this?

yes.

they are bottom of the social scale. They arent needed.  Take em to the proper shooting galleries & spend the money
on more cancer drugs, etc.

Im not against it, but surely if you basically bypass the dealers, theyll either lower prices a lot, or just go and find something which is meant to be better than heroin, and the cycle will continue?

Spend the money on cells where they can be locked for days/weeks/months/however long it takes where they can go cold turkey. Its the only real way to beat it.

Im finding it hard to decide on this one.

On the one hand it reduces crime and brings people closer to treatment in the short term, but in the long term it just makes the addiction easier to maintain, it havent been proved to cure it.

Plus the costs would spiral as more and more people came to rely on the handouts, its like giveing out free money to stop muggings. You stop muggings but you arent stopping the people from getting the money.

Id like to say condem them all but thats not a society we live or want to live in.

Problem is they give out Methadone, which is arguably worse as its more addictive.

The idea is to control the persons drug supply, reduce it and gradually wean them off the drug.

Quote from: Eggtasticoyes.

they are bottom of the social scale. They arent needed.  Take em to the proper shooting galleries & spend the money
on more cancer drugs, etc.

^^^

this

or send them to Africa to clear mine fields or something.....

I think this is an excellent idea.

Hardened drug users will always find their way back to drugs regardless of whether or not theyve been forced to go cold turkey.

The crime they commit and the investigation of that crime costs so much more than offering them these drugs it makes complete sense to me. Putting them in prison will also cost more, per year, than it would to supply heroin to them.

The ideal scenario would be to get them off the drugs and help them to live a meaningful life in society but that aint ever gonna happen for a lot of these people. The next best thing would be to cut out the harm they cause people through crime to fund their addiction.

Either way, supply them the drug or not. Were still paying for it either through crime detection or paying for the drugs. Id rather ordinary people werent affected as much in the process, so supplying them is definitely a lesser of the two evils.

National service.

If you leave school at 16 and dont go to further education or work, national service

if you leave school at 18 and dont go to uni/college or work - national service

unemployed for more than 6 months - national service.

All periods of national service are indefinite - until employment through training or further education.

National service to be undertaken either in military service, or in community service, delivering works that councils etc are supposed to, but fail to due to poor management of funds. Providing civil service, and building works etc.

So long as national service doesnt mean mandatory military service Id say its a great idea. For those who are on the dole and CAN work, theres no reason why they shouldnt be doing community service stuff. It might help even lower some of the rates of things like litter/graffitti etc.

exactly, if you get a hundred quid a week on the dole, why cant you do 20 hours digging a hole, cleaning up a park, or a bit of gardening etc.. for it ?

i think the national service idea could work, but I have reservations.

Ive got asthma so i wouldnt be able to do the national military service. Now id have no problem at all doing national military service, id probably even enjoy it. BUT i would not enjoy going around doing community service

national service would cost to much..
also if you made them do litter picking, fence painting, etc.
that will put people out of jobs &/or drive down their prices.

Would it not provide more jobs than taking away?

And I guess it would make the contractors more competitive, they will be skilled, whilst the dolers will just be manual labour.

Quote from: MarkNational service.

Military dont want national service back. Government couldnt afford the wages anyway, then there is all the equipment.