If we are to have a sensible debate, instead of trying to throw the ball back in my court whilst stamping your feet, why not deal with my point about terminal ill cancer patients, if any thing they are in less of position than a heroin addict to make an informed choice about entering a research program. Yet you do not seem to have any objection to this.

Nevertheless, to suggest that ‘all’ heroin addicts are unable to make an informed decision about entering this particular research project is insulting and plain wrong, it confirms my suspicion that a majority of people who work in your field believe all drug addicts are mad, bad, or sad.

I have met many addicts who would not go near such a research project, as the restrictions would be far to tight for them to continue to live a normal life and they have ‘absolutely’ no wish to become submerged within the drug treatment system or become the plaything of what many of them regard as the drug treatment mafia. I’m presuming, to receive there’re daily supply, the addict on this research project would have to attend a set place at a set time each day. There are also I’m sure the usual reasons why tens of thousands of addicts refuse to attend NHS DDU’s , etc.

You say you are not against the prescribing of heroin in principle, how about in practice, for under the current system, principles are something few street heroin addicts can afford. In a civilized society these trials would be un-necessary, as there is plenty of research out there to prove prescribing injectable heroin [or methadone] to long term addicts works well to improve the quality of there lives, and brings benefits to society as a whole.

In any case, I’m sure you are aware this current research was window dressing to persuade politicians to straighten their backbones and prove they have a spine for once. My language may seem blunt, but hell, so many lives have been ruined by prohibition and the infantile tightening of prescribing practice since the 1960s and the acquiescence of the medical profession to go along with it, that I feel anger and contempt is totally justified.

By the way please do not lay that means justify the end crap on me, that is not what I said or meant.

PS. The heroin will not be free, as addicts pay tax, if not directly then through VAT, Fuel, alcohol tax, etc.

Regards

Mick

Anything to put road blocks in the way of progress, Ah Tony, One could equally ask how can informed consent be given by people who are suffering from terminal cancer and are asked to take part in a research project that may bring them respite or a cure. (But you would not dare, would you?)

As I wrote in my comment, you lot should start showing some respect to people who have problems with drug addiction, is it any wonder that members of your own profession who fall into this category hide their addiction from colleagues, when the average doctor displays more ignorance and bigotry on this subject that the economically deprived.

In truth the research programe you mention is a total waste of money as you and your profession are well aware the English system of dealing with drug addicts worked successfully for decades, before the said media and their political gofers crashed it. Still, I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies

I agree drug addicts can be difficult, but demanding they drink daily a tiny amount of oral methadone at a chemist shop counter in full view of other shoppers, is hardly going to instill them with self respect. I could go on but you have probably heard it all before but I just wish the medical profession would say sorry to drug addicts, we fucked up and started showing drug addicts some respect.

By the way like the blog and will drop by.

I’m not sure how good a working model of a legally regulated drug supply it is because I think the trials are designed in such a way as to confine the option to a relatively small subgroup of treatment-resistant users. I would also emphasise the adverse effects and there must have been quite a heightened clinical atmosphere to deliver the care. I don’t think you could confidently give heroin as a treatment in primary care for example. So I’m not sure these clinics represent an expandable model and as with all medical evidence one has to be careful about how far the results get extrapolated.

I think that’s my fuller point – just because I think there are some very strong arguments for liberalisation of the drug laws I’m wary of how the medical evidence is wielded in support of that argument.

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/09/heroin-trials-welcome-but-wait-has-cost.html

although I disagree on the last point. What is legally supplied heroin if not a proven and working model of legally regulated drug supply and its advantages over criminal markets and criminalising users?