Thursday 3 March 2011

Russian Roulette

The news of three deaths in East Lancashire at different locations, but within an hour of each other due to suspected drug overdoses, serves yet again to highlight the absurdity of current drug policies. Every time a heroin user injects they have absolutely no idea what the substance might be, what its strength is and what it might be 'cut' with. It's a game of 'russian roulette' every time. How come we've found a method of reducing harm from the dangers of using dirty needles by instigating needle exchange schemes, but this form of dicing with instant death remains?

Surely as a civilised society, if we are serious about reducing harm, rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying something like 'well they knew the risks' shouldn't we be finding a method of guaranteeing the quality of the substance to be used? Common sense says there's only one way to do that and that is prescribe it in the first place. There have been controlled prescribing experiments in recent time here in the UK with positive results, so why are we not seeing this reflected in government policy?    

1 comment:

  1. I think that the politicians are afraid to address the fact they have created a monster of their own making. For years we have had politicians making cheap shots against drug users, they are after all an easy group to victimise. Yet the problems of drug use are entirely due to the criminalisation. You could argue that there has been a whole industry created out of the war on drugs, with participants being the police, customs, prisons and now with money laundering regulations the finance industry has been dragged into it as well. Thanks to the demonisation of drugs users it would be very hard for anyone to put forward the idea of giving addicts heroin (could you imagine the front pages of the tabloids)even if it reduced crime, deaths and disease. Out of interest I checked the price of pharmaceutical grade heroin to the NHS and it is £2.69 for 5 milligrams and that price has been criticized as being too high as there is a monopoly supplier in the UK.

    ReplyDelete