What a waste of money

[blondejamtart]

So no treatment for people with drink or smoke related illness's?

 

I'm guessing you dont drink or smoke?

 

Actually, no I don't - but more to the point, last time I checked, both of those activities were actually still legal. Drugs aren't.

[doctor jambo]

Actually, no I don't - but more to the point, last time I checked, both of those activities were actually still legal. Drugs aren't.

 

 

Or for that matter, people in road crashes who are driving too fast, or taking part in risque sports?

Or if your kids are up to no good and injure themselves?

At what point does any illness NOT become self inflicted?

Heart disease, bowel cancer, diabetes, etc most have a degree of self inflicted injury involved

Can we really pick what we deem to be acceptable self inflicted injury, or are we merely ignoring our own "acceptable " vices, and picking easy targets for our ire?

The fact remains that the biggest drain on Health resources is alcohol/nicotine

[blondejamtart]

Or for that matter, people in road crashes who are driving too fast, or taking part in risque sports?

Or if your kids are up to no good and injure themselves?

At what point does any illness NOT become self inflicted?

Heart disease, bowel cancer, diabetes, etc most have a degree of self inflicted injury involved

Can we really pick what we deem to be acceptable self inflicted injury, or are we merely ignoring our own "acceptable " vices, and picking easy targets for our ire?

The fact remains that the biggest drain on Health resources is alcohol/nicotine

 

Risque sports? Is that like kinky sex, as opposed to being merely risky, then?

 

I do take your point though - and I suppose that it is very much a case of where you draw the line. Given that the health service does have finite resources though, lines do have to be drawn somewhere. Maybe it all comes down to people's own experiences of particular situations, and I'm only speaking from my personal point of view here, but I'd rather see the money being spent in other areas.

Yes, you can say that many illnesses or conditions do have a certain degree of "self-infliction" as it were, but there are many others which do not. What about childhood cancers, for example?

I know this is reducing it to a very simplistic (and hypothetical) level, but given the choice between treating a child with cancer or a drug addict, I know which one I'd choose.

[coppercrutch]

Interesting topic.

 

When it comes to drugs however people haev always used them and always will. No point in trying to stop them. Just legalise it all and be done with it. I bet you a few posters on this thread have been on heroin before and don't even know it.

 

I hate lazy ****. I hate people that think they can just scrounge of the rest of us and sit on their backsides all day. They deserve to be shot. That argument is very different to drug users though. I imagine many of those at the highest reaches of our society are regular drug users. Doctors, judges, senior policemen etc...

 

Are people taking drugs a 'problem' ? Or is it everything that goes with it that is the problem ?

 

Alcohol is the most damaging drug the World has ever seen.

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

Interesting topic.

 

When it comes to drugs however people haev always used them and always will. No point in trying to stop them. Just legalise it all and be done with it. I bet you a few posters on this thread have been on heroin before and don't even know it.

 

I hate lazy ****. I hate people that think they can just scrounge of the rest of us and sit on their backsides all day. They deserve to be shot. That argument is very different to drug users though. I imagine many of those at the highest reaches of our society are regular drug users. Doctors, judges, senior policemen etc...

 

Are people taking drugs a 'problem' ? Or is it everything that goes with it that is the problem ?

 

Alcohol is the most damaging drug the World has ever seen.

 

How do you inject Heroin and not know it?

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

Actually, no I don't - but more to the point, last time I checked, both of those activities were actually still legal. Drugs aren't.

 

Dont Drink or Smoke?

 

Cheap date!

[heartgarfunkel]

Free kit for Junkies, it would save us all a fortune in the long run. It would make the streets safer and keep the prisons under capacity. It would reduce the need for much of the crime that blights our communities.

 

If somebody goes to prison for shoplifting to feed their habit it isn't only the tiny cost of the goods involved, it is first of all the Police that need to be paid for, their evidence gathering also costs money, the prosecution costs money, the defence through legal aid costs money, the Sheriff at the court costs money, the transport to prison costs money by paying the contract to Reliance, then it costs approx.?17500 to keep somebody in prison for 6 months(a 12 month sentence).

 

The war has been lost it only remains to make some of the conditions for receiving free gear that it has to be collected from health professionals who are trained to give help and advice in the hope that addicts will use their services to leave the cycle.

 

Lets face it, if the govt. were to source the heroin it would cost a fraction of the price a dealer would expect and we are in Afghanistan anyway.

 

I say this as somebody who has known literally thousands of addicts over the years and I can assure everyone that I'm not some social working bleeding-heart.

 

I would prefer it if my family and kids could walk our city in years to come with one major reason for them being robbed removed from society.

 

Its not really a vote winner though and at the end of the day that is all that really matters in politics.

 

Could not agree more. Take the crime out of the equation.

[coppercrutch]

How do you inject Heroin and not know it?

 

Hospital - Injury - Painkiller - Diamorphine - needle - Heroin

 

Not had it myself but have heard from a few people who have. Most people who have had this in the hospital won't realise they have just basically had an injection of skag !!

 

Apparently does the job.

[blondejamtart]

Dont Drink or Smoke?

 

Cheap date!

 

Aye right! Reckon my husband would disagree with you on that one!

[K1874M]

Actually, no I don't - but more to the point, last time I checked, both of those activities were actually still legal. Drugs aren't.

 

just read your reponse and realise your not a nazi

 

Ok..

 

Every single person on the planet deserves treatment stop treating drug addicts and get ready to be refused treatment if you are caught speeding.

[blondejamtart]

I've never claimed to be perfect - far from it. I'm only too well aware that alcohol and tobacco are drugs, and just as, if not more harmful than some of their illegal cousins, as it were, but as things stand are present, they are legal, while things like heroin, cocaine etc, are not. Whether they should be is a whole other argument altogether. Personally, I don't care what anyone else smokes, drinks, snorts, shoots up their veins or whatever, as long as it doesn't affect or impact on the rest of us. Sadly, for the most part, it does....and it's the rest of us who end up paying.

I'm not in the habit of making "wild judgements" - like other posters on here, I've seen at first hand the impact drugs can have. My views on this particular subject may not be popular, but they're by no means snap judgements - more the result of almost 30 years' experience. They may not be popular views, but they're mine, and I stand by them.

[K1874M]

I've never claimed to be perfect - far from it. I'm only too well aware that alcohol and tobacco are drugs, and just as, if not more harmful than some of their illegal cousins, as it were, but as things stand are present, they are legal, while things like heroin, cocaine etc, are not. Whether they should be is a whole other argument altogether. Personally, I don't care what anyone else smokes, drinks, snorts, shoots up their veins or whatever, as long as it doesn't affect or impact on the rest of us. Sadly, for the most part, it does....and it's the rest of us who end up paying.

I'm not in the habit of making "wild judgements" - like other posters on here, I've seen at first hand the impact drugs can have. My views on this particular subject may not be popular, but they're by no means snap judgements - more the result of almost 30 years' experience. They may not be popular views, but they're mine, and I stand by them.

 

As are my judgments... I've seen people sectioned, people paralysed... Those that I have known have benefited after tragedy...

 

because some people take such a snobby attitude that the addicts / users fear help, no on wants to be sectioned or paralysed from the neck down but sometimes its only then that they get the help needed.

 

We need to make it easier for people to receive treatment not treat them like lepars….. if you’ve ever been to a country with a bad immigrants problem, ie Thailand where Cambodians live by highways and addicts sleep on streets with kids, then you’d realise refusing treatment and hand outs would only make your perfect world a disgusting and horrible place to be, with reminders on every corner.

 

Oh and next time you receive treatment at the hospital be sure to thank a smoker for the fantastic services they have paid for over the years.

[blondejamtart]

I'm not a snob and I don't live in some moral high ground or perfect little bubble, isolated from society. But at the end of the day, we all have free will and no-one is forced to drink alcohol, smoke or take drugs. If those actions affected only the person concerned, then it would all be well and good - but they don't. I've seen, for example, the kid across the road left home alone into the early hours of the morning, playing out in the street from pre-school age and having to be taken in and fed by the local shopkeeper because his junkie mum can't be bothered looking after him herself. Why should an innocent child have to suffer in that way?

[K1874M]

I'm not a snob and I don't live in some moral high ground or perfect little bubble, isolated from society. But at the end of the day, we all have free will and no-one is forced to drink alcohol, smoke or take drugs. If those actions affected only the person concerned, then it would all be well and good - but they don't. I've seen, for example, the kid across the road left home alone into the early hours of the morning, playing out in the street from pre-school age and having to be taken in and fed by the local shopkeeper because his junkie mum can't be bothered looking after him herself. Why should an innocent child have to suffer in that way?

 

They shouldnt... society should do more to prevent the cause... which boils down to more money needing spent... taking kids away as you put it would actually cost the tax payer even more money.

 

Taking kids away isnt really dealing with the problem is it? You'd still have the skag head next door willing to rob your house as they cant afford their drugs.... and probably be more desperate as they woudl really have nothing to lose.

[Taffin]

Those that end up in A and E due to a pagger after an alcohol induced evening I would make them pay for their A and E treatment.

 

Those that have ruined their livers through conistant drinking I would refuse transplants.

 

Probably makes me in a minority of one but, well thats how I feel and I say this as one who's mother was an alcoholic and who lost two step-sisters to drug addiction.

 

 

 

John

 

Its a tough line to draw though, on the surface I tend to fully agree with the above. However some people would argue that what about a sportsman/woman, say a dancer who knows that by continuing to dance after a knee injury will result in repeated surgery, do you refuse that too as it was their own fault and they knew it would result in that?

[MacDonald Jardine]

No but a lot do

 

I dont think in current times it is necessary for mothers/fathers not to work at least part time

 

To me it seems there are too many in this society happy to let 1 work whilst the other swans about whilst the kids are at school/nursery etc and take a fortune in child benefits

 

As I said they should be meantested based on what people offer to society

 

I.e a family who sit at home and do nothing all day like many do shouldnt get a penny, wereas ones who work when they can should be on the upper end of the scale

 

It seems to me its too easy to have a few kids, claim you cant work as there is no time and take a fortune in through benefits thus making it completely easy to offer nothing to society

 

As far as i am concerned let the **** wasters rot and use the taxpayers money to give those who bother a better standard of living and public services and reward them, for what they bring to society

 

So basically the less you need help in the form of benefits the more you get?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

So basically the less you need help in the form of benefits the more you get?

 

 

Not necessarily in basic benefits but value for their money i.e better public services, as opposed to it all being sunk on the dregs of society

 

Why should people who earn a lot and pay a fortune in tax see little or no return whilst those who dont get a fortune at other peoples expenses

 

At the end of the day this country has far too many scroungers and its time something was done about it as opposed to bending over and giving them even more

[MacDonald Jardine]

Not necessarily in basic benefits but value for their money i.e better public services, as opposed to it all being sunk on the dregs of society

 

Why should people who earn a lot and pay a fortune in tax see little or no return whilst those who dont get a fortune at other peoples expenses

 

At the end of the day this country has far too many scroungers and its time something was done about it as opposed to bending over and giving them even more

 

Because they don't need it as much as those who don't earn a lot.

It's a hallmark of a civilised society that people aren't just left to sink because they can't earn for themselves.

 

What public services should be improved that would benefit high earners rather than lower earners?

Should we scrap the NHS because those that really want to and are willing to work can go private?

No point in public transport because your high earners will have cars.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Because they don't need it as much as those who don't earn a lot.

It's a hallmark of a civilised society that people aren't just left to sink because they can't earn for themselves.

 

What public services should be improved that would benefit high earners rather than lower earners?

Should we scrap the NHS because those that really want to and are willing to work can go private?

No point in public transport because your high earners will have cars.

 

 

ahh so basically the rich/grafters should subsidise the **** because its the done thing?

 

How about the money be spent on benefiting society who contribute i.e more regeneration, better roads, better infastructure, better local services and generally stop sinking our cash into the nobodies who would prefer to spend there days watching jeremy kyle and my and everyone elses expense

[davemclaren]

ahh so basically the rich/grafters should subsidise the **** because its the done thing?

 

How about the money be spent on benefiting society who contribute i.e more regeneration, better roads, better infastructure, better local services and generally stop sinking our cash into the nobodies who would prefer to spend there days watching jeremy kyle and my and everyone elses expense

 

Clearly education could do with a lot more money....

[MacDonald Jardine]

ahh so basically the rich/grafters should subsidise the **** because its the done thing?

 

How about the money be spent on benefiting society who contribute i.e more regeneration, better roads, better infastructure, better local services and generally stop sinking our cash into the nobodies who would prefer to spend there days watching jeremy kyle and my and everyone elses expense

 

What local services?

I can't think of one that would benefit people who "contribute more" more than your scroungers.

If that's what you want would you not be better with no public services at all? That way everyone can buy what services they want and deserve (i.e. can afford).

 

It's not because it's the done thing.

It's the decent thing.

By all means clamp down on fraud and abuse but there's nothing wrong in giving assistance to those that need it.

[Ulysses]

I'm not in the habit of making "wild judgements" - like other posters on here, I've seen at first hand the impact drugs can have. My views on this particular subject may not be popular, but they're by no means snap judgements - more the result of almost 30 years' experience. They may not be popular views, but they're mine, and I stand by them.

 

All that demonstrates is that even a deeply held and carefully considered view can be simplistic, prejudiced and wrong. I guess we live and learn, eh?

[Chancer]

If they need help give them it I say!

 

Happy thoughts!

[Sharpie]

I suggest anyone who has numerous university degrees and does not seem to appreciate the difference between kill and cull, should be required to do mandatory volunteer work at a rehab clinic, or day care centre for working mums kids. This should only be done of course after treatment for their addiction to beig suspended from JKB.

[doctor jambo]

I think also that out of the ?94 million much will be spent on employing staff to work with addicts

The rehab/addictions services are now a massive industry providing employment in some pretty deprived areas

That ?94 million will provide a lot of tax paying jobs, so the cash outlay gets partially recouped

Is that such a bad thing?

And whilst people in general get really down on addicts, wh ynot get stuck into the obese?

They too die young and leave a huge drain on resources- work less than the slim, cost more in operations, medication, hospital time etc

They know that eating too much/ exercising too little has its problems , yet continue to do so

Just because someone picks up a take away instead of a syringe doesn't make them any better

And the legality argument is not a reasonable one

Drugs were not always illegal, and may not always be so

Would it not be better to help those with a problem than pick on them?

This is just anti-heroin snobbery. No-one seems to be getting on their high horse about coke, dope, E or speed, all of which are illegal and cause problems

[K1874M]

I think also that out of the ?94 million much will be spent on employing staff to work with addicts

The rehab/addictions services are now a massive industry providing employment in some pretty deprived areas

That ?94 million will provide a lot of tax paying jobs, so the cash outlay gets partially recouped

Is that such a bad thing?

And whilst people in general get really down on addicts, wh ynot get stuck into the obese?

They too die young and leave a huge drain on resources- work less than the slim, cost more in operations, medication, hospital time etc

They know that eating too much/ exercising too little has its problems , yet continue to do so

Just because someone picks up a take away instead of a syringe doesn't make them any better

And the legality argument is not a reasonable one

Drugs were not always illegal, and may not always be so

Would it not be better to help those with a problem than pick on them?

This is just anti-heroin snobbery. No-one seems to be getting on their high horse about coke, dope, E or speed, all of which are illegal and cause problems

 

Well said Doc.

[blondejamtart]

I thought I'd made it clear that my views on the subject covered all of those, and not just heroin.

[K1874M]

I thought I'd made it clear that my views on the subject covered all of those, and not just heroin.

 

I think you did.... so thats a fair comment.

 

But surely it doesnt matter what the drug or the addiction is thats ruining the persons life.... legal or not... they still need help.

 

People would become the new litter if we refused treatment or help.

[doctor jambo]

I think you did.... so thats a fair comment.

 

But surely it doesnt matter what the drug or the addiction is thats ruining the persons life.... legal or not... they still need help.

 

People would become the new litter if we refused treatment or help.

 

I agree Kenny, too easy to disregard drug addicts and I suspect it all boils down to a few things

1- it tends to affect people we already inherently dislike as a group ie neds, chavs, dole spongers and it jsut gives us an excuse to take the high ground over a sub class of people we just dont like in general

2- the crime aspect- methadone (properly managed) deals wiht much of this and is a great success form a criminal justice view point. The problem is that there is not enough methadone around to treat people properly (or at all) the mony should address this issue

3- it makes us all feel better about alcohol, our major vice

I have had three real beatings in my time- all caused by drunks. Youths smashed on booze put more people in a state of fear than heroin addicts, yet because most of us drink, we like to think we are better than the junkies and justify the problems of alcohol to make us feel better about taking it ourselves

 

- Drug snobbery

Heroin is not a problem if you can afford to buy it

I know people who work on methadone, heroin etc

The problem is with people who cannot afford thier habit

[spud]

I am shocked at some of the views being expressed on this thread. A society is a collection of humans who live together because the benefits outweigh the costs. The costs include the fact that some members are less equipped mentally, emotionally and physically to cope. The duty of the rest of society is to help them cope. Of course, you get people who would rather scrounge than help but you cannot ignore the socially disadvantaged because of a group of hangers on. This is like promoting the banning of free speech because you don?t agree with the speaker?s views.

One poster even recommends that people earning over 60Ks per annum should get better services and are contributing ?loads? to society. Lots of drug dealers are earning in excess of 60K per year, should they be recognized for their valuable contributions to society? Of course not; to base your societal worth on the acquisition of money is a ridiculous argument. Just as ridiculous as some of the other ?solutions? expounded here. Now I?ve been thinking about the Jewish problem????????.

[K1874M]

I am shocked at some of the views being expressed on this thread. A society is a collection of humans who live together because the benefits outweigh the costs. The costs include the fact that some members are less equipped mentally, emotionally and physically to cope. The duty of the rest of society is to help them cope. Of course, you get people who would rather scrounge than help but you cannot ignore the socially disadvantaged because of a group of hangers on. This is like promoting the banning of free speech because you don?t agree with the speaker?s views.

One poster even recommends that people earning over 60Ks per annum should get better services and are contributing ?loads? to society. Lots of drug dealers are earning in excess of 60K per year, should they be recognized for their valuable contributions to society? Of course not; to base your societal worth on the acquisition of money is a ridiculous argument. Just as ridiculous as some of the other ?solutions? expounded here. Now I?ve been thinking about the Jewish problem????????.

 

Great post.

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

Aye right! Reckon my husband would disagree with you on that one!

 

Eh, never offered to take him out as well!

[Do you know where hell is]

Well that was my mum's lot after Britain had stitched up Poland both pre and post war. We might be a bunch of Slavic kaffirs in your filthy eyes but by all means, you and your goose-stepping chums are welcome to have your "kill" as you so eloquently put it but we tend to bite back when attacked.

As a great English writer once wrote: ""If you p rick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

So when is your great purge taking place? Let me know so that I can stick the kettle on while we wait for your crass display of purity to arrive.

 

Idiot!

 

**** Have a word ****

[Boof]

Out of all the sense and ****e that's been posted on this thread, I'd just like to say that spud, doctor jambo and jazzmaster best put forward a conglomeration of my views.

To the extent that I'll not add anything further.

[Walter Kidd]

There is no such thing as society. Margaret Thatcher sometime in the 80's.

 

Drug addicts are ****bags - Jamboskickback 2008.

 

Drug addicts need help, not hindrance. Is this what this nation has become? An intolerant me, me, me where everyone is out for themselves?

 

Some people need help in society, whether they be immigrants, drug users, pensioners, disabled, blind, schizophrenic etc. Some of the posts on this thread make me sick to the stomach. We need to build a society where everyone is equal health wise.

[K1874M]

There is no such thing as society. Margaret Thatcher sometime in the 80's.

 

Drug addicts are ****bags - Jamboskickback 2008.

 

Drug addicts need help, not hindrance. Is this what this nation has become? An intolerant me, me, me where everyone is out for themselves?

 

Some people need help in society, whether they be immigrants, drug users, pensioners, disabled, blind, schizophrenic etc. Some of the posts on this thread make me sick to the stomach. We need to build a society where everyone is equal health wise.

 

Some of the red necks on this thread would have you killing them off to make it equal... Adolf would have been proud.