Legally Supplied Heroin Reduces Crime.

[Big Orange]

Shows what the real drain on society is:

Page last updated at 04:06 GMT, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 05:06 UK
Heroin supply clinic 'cuts crime'
By Danny Shaw
BBC home affairs correspondent

A scheme in which heroin is given to addicts in supervised clinics has led to big reductions in the use of street drugs and crime, the BBC has learned.

More than 100 users took part in the pilot - part funded by the government - in London, Brighton and Darlington.

They either injected heroin or received the drug's substitute methadone.

Those given heroin responded best and an independent panel which monitored the scheme over six months is advising ministers to set up further trials.

About three-quarters of those given heroin were said to have "substantially" reduced their use of street drugs.

Research suggests that between half and two-thirds of all crime in the UK is drug-related.

The Home Office says on its website that about three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habits.

Professor John Strang, who led the project, said the results were "very positive" because the scheme had helped cut crime and avoid "expensive" prison sentences.

Professor Strang, who is based at the National Addiction Centre, part of King's Health Partners, said the individuals on the programme were among those who had been the hardest to treat.

"It's as if each of them is an oil tanker heading for disaster and so the purpose of this trial is to see: 'Can you turn them around? Is it possible to avert disaster?'

"And the surprising finding - which is good for the individuals and good for society as well - is that you can," he said.

The Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) programme - which is funded by a number of agencies, including the Department of Health - began in 2005.

It involved 127 chronic heroin addicts for whom conventional types of treatment had failed.

Many of the addicts were also using other substances, including crack cocaine.

During the trials, a third of addicts were given the heroin substitute methadone orally and another third injected methadone under supervision.

The remainder, observed by nurses, injected themselves with diamorphine - unadulterated heroin - imported from Switzerland.

National roll-out?

Those on the programme were also given psychological support and help with their housing and social needs.

The results showed that addicts in all three groups cut the amount of heroin they obtained illicitly from street dealers.

According to researchers, more than half of the heroin injecting group were said to be "largely abstinent" and one-in-five did not use street heroin at all.

Before they began the programme, the addicts in the heroin injecting group were spending more than £300 a week on street drugs. After six months, this had reduced to an average of £50 a week.

There was also a big drop in the number of offences addicts admitted committing to obtain money to feed their habit.

In the previous month before the scheme started, addicts in the heroin injecting group reported carrying out 1,731 crimes.

After six months, this had fallen to 547 offences - a reduction of more than two-thirds.

One of the heroin addicts on the programme, a 34-year-old man called John, had been addicted for eight years when the trials began. He fed his habit by dealing.

"My life was just a shambles... waking up, chasing money, chasing drugs," he said.

But John said the scheme had transformed his life "100 per cent" and he now had a part-time job.

"It used to be about chasing the buzz, but when you go on the programme you just want to feel comfortable," he said.

"I've started reducing my dose gradually, so that maybe in a few months time I'll be able to come off it altogether, drug free totally."

In its drug strategy, published last year, the government said it would "roll out" the prescription of injectible heroin, subject to the findings of the pilot scheme.

The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), which administers drug treatment in England, said the results were "encouraging".

The NTA said an independent expert group, set up to advise the government, had concluded that there was enough "positive evidence of the benefits" of the programme to merit further pilots.

The NTA is understood to be keen to evaluate the financial implications of the scheme. At £15,000 per user per year, supervised heroin injecting is three times more expensive than other treatments.

BBC (video included)

[RedImperator]

Oh Jesus. Listen: a heroine is a female hero. If you're talking about the illegal opiate, the word you want is heroin. It's right there in the article and everything.

[Edi]

Title fixed. And I've got to agree with RedImperator. On this board we are supposed to use properly spelled proper English (whether American spelling or British), so such basics as not fucking mixing words should be automatic. Especially for native speakers, who really don't have an excuse. Not when said word is staring them in the face from the text.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Oh look, providing legal narcotics causes a drop in crime, too bad no one in the US has suggested legalizing them about a trillion times.

[Julhelm]

That's not how you reduce crime. You reduce crime by arresting more people and handing out longer jail sentences for smaller offenses.

[Thanas]

^Sarcasm or idiocy?


On topic: Iirc Germany has done this since over a decade and it has worked over there as well.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

As its coming from Julhelm, I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm, Thanas.

If it had come from a U.S. politician, however, it would be a campaign platform.

[Vympel]

No, we can't legalise heroin. If we did, people would use it. Duh.

[PainRack]

No, we can't legalise heroin. If we did, people would use it. Duh.

Read the article Vympel. Its not about legalisation. Its about drug addiction.

The drug trial programme is actually something that has been tried in Indonesia before the finanicial crisis shut it down. If you have a large drug addict population, simple cold turkey isn't going to work as well as supplying the drugs to manage their withdrawal symptoms and then intergrating them back into society.

This pilot scheme and its findings show that heroin dosage reduction is a better treatment programme than using methadone or the old adage of cold turkey. Note also the social support and other rehab programmes thrown in, as opposed to simple confinement.

[Gil Hamilton]

That was sarcasm on his part, Painrack. The unstated thing is that people use it anyway.

[Themightytom]

Wha... ok good research but lets just stick to methodone.

[Losonti Tokash]

Wha... ok good research but lets just stick to methodone.

With all the false starts this thread has had on sarcasm, I'm hesitant to jump on you, but jesus.

[Big Orange]

Tremendously embarrassing brain-fart with misspelling heroin aside…

I agree with the concensus and this article that this is the right way to go about with stemming illicit substance abuse, since rendering certain drugs officially illegal (and not officially regulated like tobbacco) has just allowed the manufacturing and distribution of certain narcotics to be monopolised by ruthless, unaccountable crime syndicates, in much the same manner that alcohol was monopolised by mobsters in the Prohibition era, and the way that fossilising IP laws belligerently enforced today seems to cause more media piracy than it prevents anyway.

The so-called War on Drugs seems to be as misguided as the War on Terror and it has been grinding on for much longer since the 1970s, as if it was a commenced by the US Government as a distraction from the floundering Vietnam War, while putting the increasingly uppity urban underclasses back in their place. Sending drug addicts to prison seems to worsen their habits, with internal criminal organizations having a thriving black market selling "highs" to inmates.

[PainRack]

That was sarcasm on his part, Painrack. The unstated thing is that people use it anyway.

Its wrong sarcasm, because the article isn't about drug legalisation but about rehab treatment.

[Vympel]

How can a sarcastic remark be 'wrong', exactly?

To explain the remark (can't believe I'm doing this), I'm referring to puritanical reasoning. To the puritan, it's irrelevant whether providing heroin and methadone legally reduces crime, because they view punitive measures for drug use as an end in and of itself.

Further, it's simply being nitpicky to say the article's talking about rehab and not legalisation. The clinics are providing drugs in a legal rather than extra-legal environment. Hence the comments about legalisation before mine.

[loomer]

Wha... ok good research but lets just stick to methodone.

Methadone doesn't work that well. It can help quite a few people, but there's still major issues involved.

[Death from the Sea]

one thing that I am wondering is did this study take into account that they were giving them the drugs for free versus making them pay for it? how much would crime have dropped if they still had to pay for their fix? wouldn't they still have to steal (for those that steal to buy their drugs) to buy the study drugs????

after all it ain't like if drugs were legal tomorrow they would all be free.

[loomer]

Well, in Britain, they'd be paying like, five pounds for their prescription. I'm guessing a few shots of skag is going to cost a LOT more than that if they had to buy from street dealers.

[Vendetta]

one thing that I am wondering is did this study take into account that they were giving them the drugs for free versus making them pay for it? how much would crime have dropped if they still had to pay for their fix? wouldn't they still have to steal (for those that steal to buy their drugs) to buy the study drugs????

That would have rendered the whole thing useless. If people had to pay full whack for the drugs they recieved as part of this study, there'd be no incentive for them to stick to the dosage reduction programme, because they're not saving anything by using this skag as opposed to their usual dealers, which was what they were actually testing.

[KrauserKrauser]

Also I would think that heroin can be made extrememly cheaply if necessary. Even if they made them pay a nominal fee to cover production expenses, that should be significantly less than the market value.

[Death from the Sea]

one thing that I am wondering is did this study take into account that they were giving them the drugs for free versus making them pay for it? how much would crime have dropped if they still had to pay for their fix? wouldn't they still have to steal (for those that steal to buy their drugs) to buy the study drugs????

That would have rendered the whole thing useless. If people had to pay full whack for the drugs they recieved as part of this study, there'd be no incentive for them to stick to the dosage reduction programme, because they're not saving anything by using this skag as opposed to their usual dealers, which was what they were actually testing.

except for the people trying to use this to show why drugs should be legalized, as they claim it will reduce crime.

also how did they insure that people did not just take the free stuff and then not go buy more on the street to meet their need/want? did they just take the junkies word???

[loomer]

Again, Death, it's fucking Britain. It does not render the whole thing pointless when the total cost of a heroin script would be all of five pounds as compared to the vastly higher prices for street skag of decreased purity and thus questionable efficiacy (I shouldn't need to tell you this, but if the street price is still five pounds for the same amount, it's not going to be anywhere near 100% pure like it is in the clinic, meaning that more money WILL be spent.)

[Death from the Sea]

Again, Death, it's fucking Britain. It does not render the whole thing pointless when the total cost of a heroin script would be all of five pounds as compared to the vastly higher prices for street skag of decreased purity and thus questionable efficiacy (I shouldn't need to tell you this, but if the street price is still five pounds for the same amount, it's not going to be anywhere near 100% pure like it is in the clinic, meaning that more money WILL be spent.)

I am not saying that program like this would not be pointless, especially if it does get people the help to kick the habit in time. BUT I don't think that this is a valid example of why drugs should be legalized to "reduce crime" as some have said.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

To explain the remark (can't believe I'm doing this), I'm referring to puritanical reasoning. To the puritan, it's irrelevant whether providing heroin and methadone legally reduces crime, because they view punitive measures for drug use as an end in and of itself.

Meanwhile, the businessman figures out how to make a blood-soaked profit from the puritan's insane eagerness to make other people suffer. Ergo, the modern Republican Party.

[PainRack]

How can a sarcastic remark be 'wrong', exactly?

To explain the remark (can't believe I'm doing this), I'm referring to puritanical reasoning. To the puritan, it's irrelevant whether providing heroin and methadone legally reduces crime, because they view punitive measures for drug use as an end in and of itself.

Further, it's simply being nitpicky to say the article's talking about rehab and not legalisation. The clinics are providing drugs in a legal rather than extra-legal environment. Hence the comments about legalisation before mine.

You do know that Britain had already legalised the use of heroin as a painkiller, right?