Can you believe it, free drugs on NHS?

Question

What is this country coming to. They are now thinking of supplying druggies with free drugs on NHS. Apparently it will bring down the level of crime. What is your opinion??

Answer 1

I'm surpised they haven't tried to sell it with a whopping tax on it.

Answer 2

It is a very ethical topic which could be discussed for hours. The NHS already provide some alternative medications for alcohol and drug abusers.

One aim which may be achieved is that the abuse of drugs would be controlled and monitored. This gives the health care staff the opportunity to counsel and educate the drug abuser. Hopefully with a controlled withdrawal programme.

Addiction is a horrible situation to be in. Drug abusers who are not normally violent would use any method to get drugs. At least if it was controlled there would hopefully be less crime.

People from all walks of life can find them self abusing drugs because of many reasons. Just because they abuse drugs does not mean that they are bad people.

Answer 3

The NHS used to do this until the Misuse of Drugs Act came into force in the early 1970s, when we made the mistake of adopting the USA model of drug enforcement.

Drug-related crime accounts for somewhere between a third and a half of all crime in the UK, depending on which police estimate you accept, and costs the UK roughly £15billion per year. It would be much less damaging to the country's society and economy just to give drug addicts their drug of choice. This would also make it a lot easier to offer them treatment to get off drugs completely.

Answer 4

The dutch system supplies to registered addicts. It seems to work. Anti-deppressants don't work for everyone and heroine addiction can in theory be managed and therefore some addicts could even lead productive lives by getting jobs.
And for the ones that really don't want to work it beats going out stealing.

In the USA on the other hand, they have used acupuncture in prison detox programmes (federal AND state) for near 20 years now. Their success rate is something like 70-80% in keeping people habit-free. For all the crap we adapt from the US this should be looked at. To see if it could work in British prisons the way it does there. It would beat paying £750.000 of tax payers money in compensation to denied addicts. What gets in the way though is medical politics. And see my own question for more on that one.

Answer 5

The country is coming to its senses. Before the 2,000 years of the Thatherite Kingdom of Doom, drug addicts received a daily dose of what ever it was they were addicted to, on the NHS. The total number of registered addicts in 1969 was 1,000 in the London region and only a further 3,400 or so UK wide. Drug addiction was kept under control by the NHS. When Margaret Thatcher, the evil witch, came to power and created the Dictatorship of Hell, she withdrew the addicts daily fix saying she was going to rid the entire universe and beyond of addiction forever and together with her lover the B-Movie cowboy Ronny Ray Gun, she rode off into the sunset, happy in their belief that all was RIGHT with the world.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Royal Navy was given the unenviable task of ridding the world of ships carrying drugs. At monster raving expense, the Royal Navy have kept ships on station down Argentina way in the hope they will one day capture one of the pirate ships carrying ye drugs. Fat chance.

Answer 6

The current "War on Drugs" is not working. I applaud the NHS for looking for alternatives. Their view is that addicts will get drugs no matter what, and often in an unsafe and unsanitary way. The NHS hopes that it can help addicts, but realizes that they cannot be expected to quit drugs cold turkey.

Answer 7

It seems to follow the political thinking of Cameron & B-liar then logically it follows to withhold drugs from the old and cancer sufferers because they are too expensive.
Its as logical as suppoting for and providing Theme Nights in prison for murderers offering different quizines each day on the menues. Apparently the murderers love it.
Who the hell is making these desisions.

Answer 8

there are a number of drugs which the NHS in the united kingdom refuse to pay for such diverse people ought to attempt to fork out the money for them. i think of it relatively is stupid, yet on the different hand, the well-being provider has a funds, and medicines are costly. not basically for many cancers. I do have confidence they must be doing greater, yet on a similar time, i've got not got the pennies or the authority to do it for them.

Answer 9

I think it's funny.

Giving them heroin instead of methadone is much cheaper, and hopefully they'll all stop beating me up for money as they'll be happily drugged up all the time.

It is disgusting though, as some drugs that are really good for treating cancer aren't on the NHS, as the cheaper alternative is deemed to be good enough.

Answer 10

It is a good idea. Would u prefer to be mugged for crack money?- also, they will not give drugs to anyone, the person has to prove they want to give up, and will be put through a rigourus regieme for quitting. It will cut down crime and also will cut down alot of death from bad drugs which, in the long run will save millions which the NHS pays for saving a drug users life.

Answer 11

Just think for a second.
What do you prefer,heroin addicts kept quiet and calm by the state, or smack heads stealing your property,whoring themselves out,and stealing your car for drugs?

Furthermore,the drugs from the state are likely to be purer than street drugs,so fewer deaths would result.Having the junkies turn up every day at a pharmacy also means the government can keep tabs on their location