Unbelievable
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 13 November 2006
Drugs and human rights
Not only a potential legal precedent but surely a precedent for every prisoner to be allowed what they had outside..?
Not only a potential legal precedent but surely a precedent for every prisoner to be allowed what they had outside..?
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
Methadone is far nastier stuff than heroin. When a heroin addict's dependence is transferred to methadone the withdrawal symptoms on sudden cessation are worse and last longer than with heroin. ie: 3-5 days for heroin; 4-6 weeks for methadone. It is inhumane to force a methadone addict to cold-turkey.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Bob McC
tough
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
tough
This kind of attitude is exactly why civilised countries have a criminal justice system that takes the power of sanction away from thugs and those who cannot see further than their emotional reactions.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by BigH47
Heroine is illegal. Therefore they should get nothing.End of story.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Diccus62
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
Heroin is illegal. Therefore they should get nothing.End of story.
As is speeding, parking illegally, shoplifting, talking to obsessionally on naim Forums about dodgy electrics. Start of story.
Diccus
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
Heroine is illegal. Therefore they should get nothing.End of story.
Methadone is a prescription drug.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Diccus62
The vast majority of crime in the UK is committed by people with Drug problems. This creates massive problems for the communities they live in. To reduce this problem the current rationale is to reduce/cease heroin use by using a substitute drug generally Methadone (on NHS prescription). This generally stabilises the problem and significantly reduces the need for heroin, therefore reducing the need to get money illegally. As a consequence the damage to communities is significantly reduced. It can also bring more stability to the heroin user and their family (yes, they often have children).
If the patient continues to commit crime and goes to prison it is sensible that their treatment (Methadone) goes with them and is reviewed there. Some prisons DO offer Methadone programs, some don't. It is clearly time there is a consistent pattern to this across the country.
My view is that as a civilised country we should treat all our citizens with health problems as individuals. Use of heroin can be a lifestyle choice though more often a sign of a very dysfunctional and damaged background. Each case is different. If the user of heroin commits crime the punishment is often an end to their liberty. If the user of heroin doesn't commit crime (and many don't) they stay at liberty.
Heroin is an awful, addictive drug that damages lives. Their is no magic bullet.
Regards
Diccus
If the patient continues to commit crime and goes to prison it is sensible that their treatment (Methadone) goes with them and is reviewed there. Some prisons DO offer Methadone programs, some don't. It is clearly time there is a consistent pattern to this across the country.
My view is that as a civilised country we should treat all our citizens with health problems as individuals. Use of heroin can be a lifestyle choice though more often a sign of a very dysfunctional and damaged background. Each case is different. If the user of heroin commits crime the punishment is often an end to their liberty. If the user of heroin doesn't commit crime (and many don't) they stay at liberty.
Heroin is an awful, addictive drug that damages lives. Their is no magic bullet.
Regards
Diccus
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
No action arises from a base cause.
I forget the latin...
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio
However, I don't believe that the parties went to Equity law in this case.
It would seem to me that the State had a clear duty of care that they themselves had set out within various regulations - and had failed to meet this duty with damages arising for the party that sued.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
In fact, I would say that, as wards of the State, it would not be possible for prisoners to come to law with anything other than clean hands.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by joe90
I think the Latin is:
"I screwed my life up taking drugs, beat the crap out of an old lady to steal £40 so I could buy more drugs and they took me off the state-sponsored drug rehab programme when I went to prison and boo hoo I just wanna be loved and now I'm suing and the only winner is the lawyer who prosecutes the case."
Does anyone take ANY personal responsibility any more?
"I screwed my life up taking drugs, beat the crap out of an old lady to steal £40 so I could buy more drugs and they took me off the state-sponsored drug rehab programme when I went to prison and boo hoo I just wanna be loved and now I'm suing and the only winner is the lawyer who prosecutes the case."
Does anyone take ANY personal responsibility any more?
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by NaimDropper
"A Clockwork Orange"
David
David
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Martin Payne
If I got pissed and then killed someone whilst driving or in a fight, I would expect serious consequences. Same should be true for drug use.
The media seems to suggest that drug use (addiction) is taken by the law as more of a reason to give someone another chance (the poor person couldn't help it) than an indicator they will do the same thing again next week, the week after, etc.
I have no way to know if this is really the case, but addiction does appear to be responsible for a large proportion of theft & shoplifting.
If this is true, it seems to me the law should operate to get people clean and do everything to ensure they stay that way, for the protection of society.
The nasty bit of me thinks regular drug tests, and that the sentence shouldn't start until they show themselves drug clean.
In the real world, I certainly don't see any reason to allow someone to be released until they have undertaken, and responded fully to, appropriate treatment. However long that takes. Wouldn't that be best for the inmate, too, in the long run?
Doesn't the legal system ultimately exist purely to discourage & reduce anti-social behaviour? Drug addiction seems to be one of the leading causes of this.
Of course, this also implies that the prison service should *really* go for "treating" drug users rather than just locking them up. Perhaps that means specialist rehabilitation centres/prisons or whatever. The probation service would also have to continue this, whilst sending people back inside for more therapy if they fall back during parole.
Drug addiction should be taken by the law as a sign that repeat offending is likely, and then the person really pushed to (and rewarded [??via their sentence??] for) change.
cheers, Martin
The media seems to suggest that drug use (addiction) is taken by the law as more of a reason to give someone another chance (the poor person couldn't help it) than an indicator they will do the same thing again next week, the week after, etc.
I have no way to know if this is really the case, but addiction does appear to be responsible for a large proportion of theft & shoplifting.
If this is true, it seems to me the law should operate to get people clean and do everything to ensure they stay that way, for the protection of society.
The nasty bit of me thinks regular drug tests, and that the sentence shouldn't start until they show themselves drug clean.
In the real world, I certainly don't see any reason to allow someone to be released until they have undertaken, and responded fully to, appropriate treatment. However long that takes. Wouldn't that be best for the inmate, too, in the long run?
Doesn't the legal system ultimately exist purely to discourage & reduce anti-social behaviour? Drug addiction seems to be one of the leading causes of this.
Of course, this also implies that the prison service should *really* go for "treating" drug users rather than just locking them up. Perhaps that means specialist rehabilitation centres/prisons or whatever. The probation service would also have to continue this, whilst sending people back inside for more therapy if they fall back during parole.
Drug addiction should be taken by the law as a sign that repeat offending is likely, and then the person really pushed to (and rewarded [??via their sentence??] for) change.
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Martin Payne
quote:Originally posted by joe90:
I think the Latin is:
"I screwed my life up taking drugs, beat the crap out of an old lady to steal £40 so I could buy more drugs and they took me off the state-sponsored drug rehab programme when I went to prison and boo hoo I just wanna be loved and now I'm suing and the only winner is the lawyer who prosecutes the case."
Cold turkey sounds pretty nasty.
Being forced on someone when they could be weaned via methadone does seem unnecessarily brutal.
Regardless of the above, I still have a Daily Mail/Mick Parry type reaction to paying compensation to druggies who are forced to get clean when they go to prison.
How many people put themselves through this intentionally? Is it the best way to come off and stay off?
I've made it clear I see the point of prison for an addict being to get them off drugs. Does "pampering" via Methadone achieve this better or worse than cold turkey?
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by wellyspyder
Never heard of any person on the Methadone programme ever becoming totally "drug free". It is a myth. All the programme does is provide a legal supply of narcotics under "some" state control, if any.
I also say where is the personal responsibility? All this politically correct rubbish is getting beyond a joke.
bonum commune communitatis
I also say where is the personal responsibility? All this politically correct rubbish is getting beyond a joke.
bonum commune communitatis
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Diccus62
Some people do come off heroin using Methadone, others don't (maintainence). There is another medication Subutex which works in a different way to Methadone which helps people come off heroin quicker. The rationale is that you can use Heroin 'on top of Methadone' whereas with Subutex this basically isn't the case.
In regards prison unfortunately there is a lot of 'hard' drugs in there too. There are some excellent programs in some prisons which have helped prisoners 'stop' using drugs however this is hampered by the drugs already in circulation there. Some prisoners go into prison clean and come out addicted. Read here
Regards
diccus
In regards prison unfortunately there is a lot of 'hard' drugs in there too. There are some excellent programs in some prisons which have helped prisoners 'stop' using drugs however this is hampered by the drugs already in circulation there. Some prisoners go into prison clean and come out addicted. Read here
Regards
diccus
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by JamieWednesday
Agree with mnay issues brought up here.
For me though, the key was the precedent this would seem to set for government policy directed at those in its care. I assume that the real reason for settling, was to avoid a legal precedent potentially being set through court rulings. However all this seems to do is provide a policy precedent.
Fully support the notion of continuing healthcare to those who need it (not sure about self imposed drug addiction though...), prison isn't meant to be a nice place but then it doesn't need to be a torture cell either. But the argument about continuing to supply drug addicts with a dependance, could also then be applied to cigarettes, alcohol, women, child pornography or any other 'need' of the prisoner when outside surely. Addiction is addiction, whether heroin or fags. If the Government is going to supply to meet the needs of one, surely it is discriminating against the others now?
For me though, the key was the precedent this would seem to set for government policy directed at those in its care. I assume that the real reason for settling, was to avoid a legal precedent potentially being set through court rulings. However all this seems to do is provide a policy precedent.
Fully support the notion of continuing healthcare to those who need it (not sure about self imposed drug addiction though...), prison isn't meant to be a nice place but then it doesn't need to be a torture cell either. But the argument about continuing to supply drug addicts with a dependance, could also then be applied to cigarettes, alcohol, women, child pornography or any other 'need' of the prisoner when outside surely. Addiction is addiction, whether heroin or fags. If the Government is going to supply to meet the needs of one, surely it is discriminating against the others now?
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Martin Payne
quote:Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Never heard of any person on the Methadone programme ever becoming totally "drug free". It is a myth. All the programme does is provide a legal supply of narcotics under "some" state control, if any.
I guess this is just a way to bypass the prohibition of such drugs, then.
BTW, if drugs are so expensive that they cause people to steal, how can prisoners afford them?
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Bruce Woodhouse
A few thoughts;
Nobody ever died of cold turkey.
People have died from the legal supervised administration of methadone (as well as the illegal, unsupervised etc etc).
The 'standard' prison regime to detox prisoners with opiate addiction was never too kind, usually short and fairly brutal. Shorter custodial sentences have meant many inmates are just about detoxed in time for release.
The issue with heroin addicts is 5% getting them off it, 95% keeping them off. Most addicts see it the other way around, at least in the short term on admission to prison.
-fine (accepting that treatment is a 2 way process not just a something that is 'given'), but these people need to learn to be drug free in the community, not in prison. Or (and this is relevant for many) find a compromise where drug use is compatible with a healthy and law-abiding existence. Many achieve this; heroin addicts are all around us, they are not a distinct branch of the human species. You'd be suprised.
FWIW I do not think the state should deliberately force prisoners to have a more unpleasant detox than is strictly necessary. They are being punished for their crime, they should not be additionally punished for their addiction. A fast 'cold turkey' from Methadone is also likely to place a heavy burden on the medical services in terms of supervision etc and may not be in the best interest of the prison service either.
Bruce
Nobody ever died of cold turkey.
People have died from the legal supervised administration of methadone (as well as the illegal, unsupervised etc etc).
The 'standard' prison regime to detox prisoners with opiate addiction was never too kind, usually short and fairly brutal. Shorter custodial sentences have meant many inmates are just about detoxed in time for release.
The issue with heroin addicts is 5% getting them off it, 95% keeping them off. Most addicts see it the other way around, at least in the short term on admission to prison.
quote:In the real world, I certainly don't see any reason to allow someone to be released until they have undertaken, and responded fully to, appropriate treatment. However long that takes. Wouldn't that be best for the inmate, too, in the long run?
-fine (accepting that treatment is a 2 way process not just a something that is 'given'), but these people need to learn to be drug free in the community, not in prison. Or (and this is relevant for many) find a compromise where drug use is compatible with a healthy and law-abiding existence. Many achieve this; heroin addicts are all around us, they are not a distinct branch of the human species. You'd be suprised.
FWIW I do not think the state should deliberately force prisoners to have a more unpleasant detox than is strictly necessary. They are being punished for their crime, they should not be additionally punished for their addiction. A fast 'cold turkey' from Methadone is also likely to place a heavy burden on the medical services in terms of supervision etc and may not be in the best interest of the prison service either.
Bruce
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve O
I'm with you bigH47
So that makes a person who speeds a criminal on par with the bastard that thieves and attacks old ladies to feed his habit?
You speed you get three points and a fine.
You do drugs you pay the price of your liberty. This should be a deterrent not a home from home. It's the do-gooders in this society that often perpetuate a problem.
How many shoplifters do you see in Saudi? Not many 'cos the punishment is harsh.
Rant over for now.
Regards,
Steve O.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Heroin is illegal. Therefore they should get nothing.End of story.
As is speeding, parking illegally, shoplifting, talking to obsessionally on naim Forums about dodgy electrics. Start of story.
Diccus
So that makes a person who speeds a criminal on par with the bastard that thieves and attacks old ladies to feed his habit?
You speed you get three points and a fine.
You do drugs you pay the price of your liberty. This should be a deterrent not a home from home. It's the do-gooders in this society that often perpetuate a problem.
How many shoplifters do you see in Saudi? Not many 'cos the punishment is harsh.
Rant over for now.
Regards,
Steve O.
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Amputate some sense into 'em I say!
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve Toy
Drug addiction is a complex (albeit self-inflicted) medical condition. If we are to deny prisoners methadone and allow them to suffer the physical pain of cold turkey, for the sake of consistency, shouldn't all prisoners be denied pain killers when they need them?
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Diccus62
"If God made anything better, he kept it to himself"
Charles Mingus, musician, talking about Heroin.
Diccus
Charles Mingus, musician, talking about Heroin.
Diccus
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Diccus62
Speeding in cars kills many. I wonder if there are any comparison figures around regard deaths from speeding motorists compared to that of murders/manslaughter by 'drug addicts'.
Crime is crime, though clearly there are different levels and consequently different punishments. As has been mentioned, personal responsibility is a key ingredient here. If people step over that line we have the Police/Magistrates/Judges to set that punishment.
Regards
Diccus
Crime is crime, though clearly there are different levels and consequently different punishments. As has been mentioned, personal responsibility is a key ingredient here. If people step over that line we have the Police/Magistrates/Judges to set that punishment.
Regards
Diccus
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Diccus62
quote:How many shoplifters do you see in Saudi?
Ah, the home of bleedin' heart liberalism
Diccus
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve Toy
quote:Speeding in cars kills many.
This is a one of those dreaded truisms. Have you any data to back this up?
I don't know about heroin, but cold turkey from alcohol dependence can be fatal. Cold turkey from heroin is painful to the extent that victims scream out in agony. No wonder these guys are seeking compensation.
Perhaps heroin addicts should be flogged daily for three weeks while on methadone.
quote:As has been mentioned, personal responsibility is a key ingredient here. If people step over that line we have the Police/Magistrates/Judges to set that punishment.
In which case cold turkey would be a trifle disproportionate.