Drug addict paid to have vasectomy

[Legba]

Source

A 38-YEAR-OLD drug addict has become the first man in Britain to be paid to have a vasectomy as part of a controversial US project, the London Evening Standard reports.

The man, who wishes to be known only as John, was paid £200 (AUD$320) by US charity Project Prevention, which launched the project to stop drug addicts from having children.

John, who appears in BBC London's "Inside Out" program on Monday night, has been addicted to opiates for 15 years and involved with drugs since he was 11.

He said the prospect of getting cash convinced him to undergo the procedure.

"It was kind of what spurred me into doing it in a way. It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time and something that I'd already made my mind up that I wanted to do. Just hadn't got round to it," he said.

Project Prevention was founded by Barbara Harris, of North Carolina, who adopted four children from a woman addicted to crack cocaine. She said the children struggled with the addiction passed on to them by their mother.

"I got very angry about the damage that these drugs do to these children," she said.

The charity has paid more than 3,500 American men and women addicted to drugs or alcohol to not have children and is now offering the service to addicts in the UK.

[bℓσωηG]

next the poor , immigrants , and all prisoners

[Bread Filter]

aren't Vasectomies reversible these days?

[Yawning Man]

This is unbelievably fucked up. Kill off the undersirables, is that it? WTF? So children of addicts are gonna grow up to be addicts? What a load of shit. I'm honestly speechless. But Blowng has it i think. Truely a crock of shit.

cheers

[No_One]

So children of addicts are gonna grow up to be addicts? What a load of shit. I'm honestly speechless.

I'd say they're talking about the ones that use while they're pregnant and in the process get their kids biology accustomed to having a supply/addicted.

It think it has some merit in regard to females/mothers but the drugs are irrelevant biologically in a males/fathers case.

I'd like to see the criteria they are using to guage these peoples parenting capacity - what responsibilities are they saying aren't being met cause of the drugs?

I'm pretty sure mentally handicapped people or others in society who aren't well equipped to meet it's demands aren't paid to be neutered (or expected to be).

Out of curiosity does anyone know how DOCS assesses "parenting"? - do they impose a standard no matter what your beliefs?

[santiago]

its nothing new, throughout history criminals have been given vasectomies....probably the most famous being the chinese government who systematically did it to millions of men in the 70's & 80's for simple criminal activities such as speeding in a car or littering....basically if you got arrested for anything.......SNIP.

[Sonny Jim]

All I can say is thank heck its not compulsory.

Just from reading the article it appears to be a group of well meaning halfwits bribing vulnerable people into being sterilized for a few hundred dollars.

[synchromesh]

"Do you, Eugenics, take this woman (The War On Drugs) to be your lawfully wedded wife?"

Edited October 18, 2010 by synchromesh

[bℓσωηG]

Do you, Eugenics, take this woman, The War On Drugs, to be your lawfully wedded wife

LOL

[Rabaelthazar]

Hmmm... there's two sides to this. There's a lot of people on this thread ripping into the idea proposed... if it were compulsory, then it would be shocking, but...

I find it really sad to see a couple scoring gear on the streets pushing a pram, and can't help wondering whether this kid will grow up happy or miserable. I'm sure most junkie pregnancies are not planned and when the drug is going to be given more attention than the baby, then that's really sad. Not to say that this kid doesn't have a chance to grow up and live a happy, healthy life, but....

I dunno. I've got a young kid and another on the way. I can see first hand how much environment affects children. I've been through addiction in the past and I'm almost crying now imagining what my child would have been like had he been born ten years ago, had I not found the strength to lose my habit, and to change the way I was living.

I've got a close friend who conceived a child while in an fast/slow dependancy with a girl living the same lifestyle. Their kid's now 3yo, beautiful, but broken already. She cleaned up, he didn't. The kid has a junkie (trying to get clean unsuccessfully for a long time) for a father and there's so much heartbreak there.

I used to do some volunteer work at a primary school in an area where a lot of the parents were substance abusers and some of those kids were just shadows.

Having said that, a part of me believes that each child is born into the life they choose for a reason, so if the lesson they need to learn from life involves coming from a troubled home, so be it.

I respect the motivations behind this program, as I'm sure a lot of heavy drug-addicts wouldn't consider or afford (semi) permanent contraception, so it's good to have the offer and incentive there. As Bread Filter mentioned, vasectomies are reversible (clips, not cuts these days) so I'm all for it from what I've read in the OP.

[Sonny Jim]

Eugenics, I agree that this term probably sums up their motives.

The people behind this bribed sterilization are just a group who hate addicts for what ever reason and are prepared to come together financially to facilitate the bribe.

What I am trying to say is that I doubt they have the power to make any real impact. Western governments have been trying their guts out to persecute "addicts", "change their ways" and protect children for so very long. The U.S gov alone have thrown ridiculous amounts of resources at helping/hurting people with "drug problems". If all this group offers is a few hundred dollars as a bribe, well I think all they will achieve is one of two things. Firstly they will hurt some vulnerable desperate people who will do anything for a relatively small amount of money. Secondly, they will be helping people who want to be sterilized for whatever reason. In other words doing them a favor. Its not going to help or stop their cause i.e eradicating addicts and the damage they do to children in somecases, they could not possibly have the resources. Even if they did, all I can say i good luck, safe in the knowledge that they have no chance of achieving their aims.

[jay6785]

http://www.news.com.au/national/sterilise-child-abusing-parents-says-former-ombudsman/comments-e6frfkvr-1225941410319?pg=1

Just read the comments in this article to see how many people are in favour of eugenics.

[FancyPants]

PARENTS with a history of child abuse should be forced to have sterilisations,

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/sterilise-child-abusing-parents-says-former-ombudsman/comments-e6frfkvr-1225941410319?pg=1#ixzz12xuK3IR0

IMO it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but how in hell's name is stopping people with history of child abuse from breeding more abused children a bad thing???? I personally don't think this has anywhere near as much to do with drug use as preventing child abuse.

Where does eugenics come into it? Does anyone here solely use drugs just because their parents (their genetic predisposition) used drugs?

[synchromesh]

IMO it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but how in hell's name is stopping people with history of child abuse from breeding more abused children a bad thing???? I personally don't think this has anywhere near as much to do with drug use as preventing child abuse.

Nobody said it did...

Where does eugenics come into it? Does anyone here solely use drugs just because their parents (their genetic predisposition) used drugs?

Um, have you read the first article or not? Because it looks like you haven't...

Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

"It's got to be an option that's available somewhere down the track," he said.

"Some authority's got to be able to look and have the proper tools of investigation to say 'Look, in our view, this person should not have any more children'."

What in the fuck is this guy on about? God, I'd hate to see him talk about abortion...

[wandjina]

It think it has some merit in regard to females/mothers but the drugs are irrelevant biologically in a males/fathers case.

"Opiates and cocaine both have effects on adrenal and gonadal function. Opiates suppress the

hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis, whereas cocaine leads to HPA activation. Opiates also

cause gonadal dysfunction in both men and women...in addition, opiate administration is also associated with abnormal

spermatogenesis in men and has been associated with reduced sexual performance."

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajid/ajid23130-135.pdf

"Semen analyses from all of the heroin addicts and from the dual heroin-methadone users were abnormal, whereas only 10 out of 22 (45%) of the methadone takers were pathological. In all cases asthenospermia was one of the abnormalities (100%). Twenty-four per cent also showed teratospermia and hypospermia and 17% showed oligozoospermia. Such seminal pathology, especially of forward motility, even in combination with normal hormone levels, might be an early indication of heroin toxicity to the male reproductive tract."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2605.1988.tb00984.x/abstract

[FancyPants]

Nobody said it did...

Um, have you read the first article or not? Because it looks like you haven't...

Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

What in the fuck is this guy on about? God, I'd hate to see him talk about abortion...

 

Sorry should've been clearer in formatting my post, but when saying: "IMO it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but how in hell's name is stopping people with history of child abuse from breeding more abused children a bad thing???? I personally don't think this has anywhere near as much to do with drug use as preventing child abuse." I was referring to the other article linked by Jay.

Eugenics controlled by who though? The person in question in the original article chose to have the vasectomy; he wasn't forced into it. Perhaps it's just semantics, but if a person chooses not to be able to procreate then it's hardly outside controlled eugenics, isn't it? Perhaps there's some persuasion from the outside, which is why I said it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but I choose to believe - without any more info than what we're given - that the organisation willing to donate money for these vasectomies are doing it to stop children being born into drug-abusive families, not to just "better" the human race. It won't halt drug abuse, it won't halt child abuse, but surely it reduces the risk of such?

[jay6785]

FancyPants you do realise that under that 'child abuse' law, that if you are caught 'manufacturing drugs' around a child this is child abuse.

You realise that you are part of an ethnobotany community that may grow possibly some unsavoury plants the government deems narcotics, and due to crazy laws they may consider you to be 'manufactoring drugs'?'

Therefore once this law gets a hold and it is given to anyone who is caught 'abusing a child' once, you will have a serious slippery slope.

I think pedos and child beaters should be hung personally, but when the law is to steralise 'child abusers' I get scared, because the term is a very loose term thats meaning can be changed to encompass things that I wouldn't consider child abuse. If the article was about steralising sexual predators, I would be happy. Child abuse is such a loose term, a lady I know was marked as a child abuser because thier step daughter didn't like her (she was a little sociopath liar basically).

My point of view which may be incorrect is that these ideas of steralisation should at least be agaisnt a specific law 'i.e assault agaisnt a minor' or 'sexual penetration of a minor' rather than the all emcompassing 'child abuser' tag. Because the tag is a variable where people can claim 'possession of drugs within 50 metres of your child' is child abuse.

Edited October 22, 2010 by jay6785

[ThunderIdeal]

It think it has some merit in regard to females/mothers but the drugs are irrelevant biologically in a males/fathers case.

"Opiates and cocaine both have effects on adrenal and gonadal function. Opiates suppress the

hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis, whereas cocaine leads to HPA activation. Opiates also

cause gonadal dysfunction in both men and women...in addition, opiate administration is also associated with abnormal

spermatogenesis in men and has been associated with reduced sexual performance."

http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajid/ajid23130-135.pdf

"Semen analyses from all of the heroin addicts and from the dual heroin-methadone users were abnormal, whereas only 10 out of 22 (45%) of the methadone takers were pathological. In all cases asthenospermia was one of the abnormalities (100%). Twenty-four per cent also showed teratospermia and hypospermia and 17% showed oligozoospermia. Such seminal pathology, especially of forward motility, even in combination with normal hormone levels, might be an early indication of heroin toxicity to the male reproductive tract."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2605.1988.tb00984.x/abstract

 

that's all beside the point isn't it? all that falls under the banner of reduced fertility, which in the case of conception isn't going to harm the embryo in any way to my knowledge.

[Distracted]

Won't someone please think of the children?!

[wandjina]

that's all beside the point isn't it? all that falls under the banner of reduced fertility, which in the case of conception isn't going to harm the embryo in any way to my knowledge.

 

Perhaps, but sometimes the dodgy ones win the race...and poor health = poor quality sperm.

Male obesity has recently been linked with health problems in big guys offspring.

But that said, the real issue is more likely the co-morbidities associated with opiate-dependence and the luxurious lifestyle the War on Drugs affords. (NB sarcasm)

A habit can be all-consuming; things like eating well, sleeping and generally taking care of yourself tend to slip down the list of priorities.

A high proportion of long-term opiate users also smoke, experience respiratory/cardiovascular problems, bacterial infections (e.g. endocarditis, absesses), digestive 'issues' (e.g.faecal impaction) and heightened risk of contracting blood borne viruses (especially hepatitis C - over 50% prevalence chronic infection is some groups of people who inject drugs)etc.

As a recreational drug, di-acetyl morphine is actually pretty 'inert', toxicity-wise. Constipation yeah. Erectile dysfunction for some. Respiratory depression. etc

Chronic use has been shown to cause hyponatremia, which can lead to pneumonia, heart/kidney or liver failure. Opiates also have complex effects on the immune system that are not fully understood.

General health will impact upon the health of sperm, and hence increased potential for a 'substandard' or 'compromised' spermatozoa fertilising the egg.

I guess the main point I was trying to make by posting those two papers was that responsibility for conception shouldnt rest exclusively on the shoulders of drug dependent women.

The health of both men and women who use drugs matters.

[synchromesh]

Sorry should've been clearer in formatting my post, but when saying: "IMO it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but how in hell's name is stopping people with history of child abuse from breeding more abused children a bad thing???? I personally don't think this has anywhere near as much to do with drug use as preventing child abuse." I was referring to the other article linked by Jay.

I think you're oversimplifying things then. You are basically turning two different cases into one.

Eugenics controlled by who though? The person in question in the original article chose to have the vasectomy; he wasn't forced into it. Perhaps it's just semantics, but if a person chooses not to be able to procreate then it's hardly outside controlled eugenics, isn't it?

He said the prospect of getting cash convinced him to undergo the procedure.

"It was kind of what spurred me into doing it in a way. It was something that I'd been thinking about for a long time and something that I'd already made my mind up that I wanted to do. Just hadn't got round to it," he said.

Yeah, I'm sure the prospect of drugs wasn't on his mind at all...

Perhaps there's some persuasion from the outside, which is why I said it shouldn't ever be compulsory, but I choose to believe - without any more info than what we're given - that the organisation willing to donate money for these vasectomies are doing it to stop children being born into drug-abusive families, not to just "better" the human race. It won't halt drug abuse, it won't halt child abuse, but surely it reduces the risk of such?

Yeah, well, whatever. You had the same kind of attitude about tasers as well... For anybody who doesn't like the blind faith thing, I present you with a few minutes of research:

It is critical that African-Americans support C.R.A.C.K.'s [Project Prevention's] effort.

- Earl Ofari Hutchinson

As a recovered drug addict I know how important what you're doing is. When I was using crack cocaine daily, along with various other drugs (i.e. alcohol and marijuana), I was on birth control pills. Well, one month I spent the money for my prescription on crack, of course. I went to Planned Parenthood for help. They would not help me! They said I would have to be seen first by their GYN and then I would get pills costing a total of $52! I only needed $20 to fill my current prescription. Well, needless to say, I received no birth control, and became pregnant.

- New Mexico resident

I believe you are addressing a significant problem and I applaud your efforts in the care of children born to addicted parents. I hope your program will continue to flourish in the communities that you serve.

- Sherman Block, The late L.A. County Sheriff

"I wish you had come to me with your birth control offer years ago so I wouldn't have had 14 babies."

- Sharon, client #24

"Whether you are "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life", I don't see how one can find fault with the end result of your program-simply preventing women (men) from having to make an emotionally charged decision regarding an unplanned pregnancy."

- Connie, website visitor

ProjectPrevention.org

Barbara, 57, said: "Money is the best motivator for addicts.

"When they're taking drugs nothing else matters. The only thing that makes sense is to stop these people from having children.

Volunteers will give out leaflets with slogans like: "Don't let a pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit."

DailyRecord.co.uk

Board of Directors

Dr. Sally Satel: Staff Psychiatrist, Oasis Drug Treatment Clinic, Washington, D.C., 1997-present Lecturer, Yale University School of Medicine, 1995-present Professional Staff Member, Committee on Veteran's Affairs, U.S. Senate, 1996-97 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 1988-95.

I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor

By Sally L. Satel

Won't someone please think of the children?!

If anybody needs to start thinking more about the children, it's the authorities who use them for political gain.

[No_One]

Thanks Wandjina - I'd never heard of that before, very interesting.

Will this all lead to tests having to be undertaken before you are "allowed" to have children/keep your reproductive abilities do you think?

Should we need a license to be a parent?

Two academics think so, and they want legislation. The idea is sparking debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need a licence to drive a car, serve liquor, go on a deer hunt, heck, you need a licence to call yourself a barber.

Why not to raise a child?

Why is it that society demands so very little of prospective parents?

That's what two Nova Scotia academics want to know. They suggest would-be moms and dads be required to get a ``parenting'' licence.

Their idea has attracted much attention, not all of it flattering.

They call the concept pro-active. Some call the idea elitist and authoritarian.

They insist they have only the best interests of children in mind. Parents would be more respectful of their obligations if they had to earn the privilege, they say. A licence would set some minimum requirements, symbolize the importance of parenting and underscore the notion of children's rights.

Child abuse and child abandonment hit the headlines with depressing frequency. Most recently, a 5-year-old girl was found wandering barefoot in the snow in the middle of the night while her mother was at a karaoke bar. The Toronto Children's Aid Society said it deals with 10 cases each week in which children have been left unattended.

A Toronto Star investigation two years ago looked at 70 cases between 1991 and 1996 in which a parent (or other caregiver such as a mother's boyfriend) was charged criminally after a child died of abuse.

Katherine Covell, an associate professor of psychology, and husband Brian Howe, an associate political science professor, are directors of the Children's Rights Centre at the University College of Cape Breton. They maintain that family life and parental freedoms are already regulated. The trouble is, they say, the rules deal with problems after the fact.

By that time, too often, irreparable damage has been done.

It can take years, Covell and Howe say, for any action to be taken after a family is brought to the attention of children's aid officials.

Aside from such problems, there is no method of preparing people, especially teenagers, for parenthood and little to discourage them from having babies in the first place, they say. A teenager who completes high school may be less likely to choose parenthood as a route to adulthood.

Covell and Howe recommend parents be compelled to complete high school, pass a certified course on infant development, obtain a licence, sign a contract agreeing not to abuse or neglect the child and take upgrade courses throughout the child's life and when there are major family changes, such as divorce, death of a spouse or sibling.

Children have rights and parents have responsibilities, the researchers say, yet many people who have children have no interest in raising them. (Howe has no children of his own but considers himself a father to Covell's two grown children.)

Requiring parents to have a high school diploma, they concede, is arbitrary and intended as a starting point for discussion. It has drawn criticism for being elitist.

Earlier this month, Ontario announced it will require 16- and 17-year-old welfare mothers to complete high school and take a 35-hour parenting course, or lose their benefits. A teen who complies will get $500 toward her education or her child's. Critics say the policy is punitive and assumes that low-income parents are less capable than those who are well-off.

`The idea is you have to have skills, which parenting does require. Too often it's seen as `natural.' A licence would bring it to another level and would make people aware that there maybe are things that they could learn'

- Stan Shapiro, psychotherapist

Stan Shapiro, a Richmond Hill psychotherapist who has worked with parents and families for more than 30 years, says that, as a symbol, a licence could do much to raise the profile of parenting.

``Perhaps the job of parenting would be taken more seriously,'' he says. ``The idea is you have to have skills, which parenting does require. Too often it's seen as `natural.' A licence would bring it to another level and would make people aware that there maybe are things that they could learn.''

Shapiro is director of the Ontario Parenting Education Centre, a private, non-profit organization that runs practical parenting courses throughout Greater Toronto.

He points to a recent Statistics Canada study that concluded parenting style has a larger impact on a child's behaviour than any other factor.

``Parenting matters a heck of a lot,'' Ivan Fellegi, Canada's chief statistician, said on the study's release in October.

``It's not true (your kids are) doomed for life if you're a single parent or you're poor. You have a big chance of not doing well, but being a positive parent is a far bigger factor.''

Thousands of parents take prenatal classes but most of them would never think of taking a parenting course, Fellegi said.

Kim Swigger, a parent of two children, aged 7 and 10, and school council chairperson at Sir Samuel B. Steele junior public school, calls the idea of licensing parents ``extreme.''

``It's a simplistic approach to a really complicated problem,'' says Swigger, a former public health nurse. ``It implies that passing some kind of test will guarantee a certain level of performance. I don't think you can apply that to parenting.''

Mary Gordon, administrator of parenting programs for the Toronto District School Board, says the state should be in ``the parent-enabling business, not the licensing business.''

It would be far more effective to give people, in a non-threatening and non-judgmental way, information that they could filter through their own value systems, she says.

Bob Glossop, co-ordinator of programs and research at the Vanier Institute of the Family, doesn't dismiss Covell and Howe's concerns. But he'd caution against any mandatory measures that suggest all parents are ill-equipped.

``The majority of parents are not falling down in doing their jobs,'' says Glossop. ``Most parents are deeply committed to doing their best.''

The issue of licensing parents arises every few years, Glossop says, but never seems to get very far.

``My sense is that the majority would not welcome that kind of intrusive involvement of the state.''

Glossop acknowledges that many parents today feel stressed and could use some form of educational support. Society has changed, yet many people simply parent as they were parented.

Glossop suggests a major public awareness campaign might help to prepare prospective parents for the awesome changes and responsibilities they'll face.

``I respect the concern out of which the (licensing) suggestion is raised,'' Glossop says. ``We need enhanced parenting skills.''

But certification goes too far.

``I'm not sure I even understand how licensing could be effectively introduced,'' Glossop says.

Who would set the standards and what would be the sanctions for those in violation?

Regrettably, many parents shy away from parenting courses, thinking they don't need them or that it might make them stand out in an unfavourable way, Shapiro says.

Having mandatory instruction might remove the hesitancy.

After all, ``if you're going to have the job, you ought to be serious about it and be trained at it,'' Shapiro says.

Although Shapiro doesn't have a problem with the concept of licensing, he says it's a non-starter.

Licensing is an authoritarian response to the deeply troubling issues of abuse and neglect, Gordon says.

``Knowledge and empathy will enhance positive parenting, appropriate and joyful parenting, much more than any silly licence will,'' she says.

``Children who are parented well bring so much to the world.''

Helping to educate parents about the stages of child development and other basic health and welfare issues should be at least as important as our efforts to support the environment, she says.

``When we gave people information and support, they bought into (home and office) recycling programs. That's the way to go, rather than the Big Brother way,'' she says. http://www.fww.org/famnews/0314c.htm

 

[wandjina]

Thanks Wandjina - I'd never heard of that before, very interesting.

Will this all lead to tests having to be undertaken before you are "allowed" to have children/keep your reproductive abilities do you think?

 

I'm glad you found it interesting.

The article raises many interesting points.

Though I would be worried about how the ability to be a good parent is defined; by whos standards?

"The trouble is, they say, the rules deal with problems after the fact."

Sterilising 'addicts' can be seen as preventative, but from another angle it is merely a bandaid. It's not addressing why people become addicted - which is not to say every public health intervention has to, or can, address broader structural issues.

I find the idea of preventing 'junkies from breeding' quite disturbing. Working in drug and alcohol for many years, the vast majority of 'addicts' I have known didnt grow up with addicted parents, they grew up with maladjusted arseholes...who themselves had grown up with maladjusted arseholes...and so on and so forth.

So, should we be offering sterilisation to arseholes then? - and if so, how do we define what constitutes 'arseholeness', and who gets to decide?

Why single out addicts for spaying? And what of the damaged people DOCs workers encounter - should they only be offered sterilisation if they're addicted to drugs? What about alcoholics or problem gamblers?

Do you think other people who neglect and abuse children would be as open to being neutered as a desperate, withdrawing opiate habitue essentially offered a free shot?

I'm all for birth control, but this is taking it to another level.

I'm reminded of that purse-lipped harpy Bronwyn Bishop who wanted to remove children from parents who used drugs. Some people might see this as a good thing when it comes to 'evil junkies' - but again, who gets to set the standards for what a 'junkie' is, and what constitutes 'problem drug use'?

"The father had been regularly consuming potent mind-altering substances including noxious fungi, raw opium and cannabis, innumerable prohibited plants grew in the garden to which the children had unrestricted access, chemicals used in the extraction and manufacture of illicit drugs were found on the property, and both parents expressed delusional beliefs related to the use of intoxicants as part of their 'religion'..."

The civil rights of all people who use drugs matter.

Offering desperate people money, who may or may not be able to give informed consent, to have major operations - which in the case of vasectomy can involve general anaesthesia - crikey, there's nothing straightforward about this at all.

Most of the 'hard-core' opiate or stimulant dependent people I've met have survived terrible abuse and neglect, research has demonstrated most long-term users are 'self-medicating' for anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychoses. Many women have been sexually abused, men brutalised.

Not everyone who has survived an abusive childhood grows up to become a 'junkie'of course, either they were lucky enough to not be exposed to certian drugs, or maybe they've just a 'better' class of people eh? So does that mean 'flawed' humans dont deserve a fair go? People who've made mistakes/poor choice/committed crimes/prisoners have no rights? Or is there something just inherently 'wrong' with being an addict?

Are all 'addicts' bad parents or 'junkies'.

Of course we should be responsible for the consequences of our actions, but who are we to pass judgement or condemn others?

And yes, it's fucked that your car stereo/tools/DVD player was stolen by 'junkies' - wouldnt it great if they could get off the drugs, get a haircut and get a real job? Fuck them, they should...wtf is wrong with them? Lock them away, that will solve the problem! Send them to jail where they'll be beaten and brutalised, with the added bonus of swapping notes with other disadvantaged people (check out the stats on the socio-economic/demographics of the people in our jails) learning new and better ways to commit crime!

Bloody hell - we're long overdue for change in law and policy - prescription heroin is a good start - far superior to methadone, and clinical trials overseas have shown it works. People begin to heal - they get jobs, reconcile with family, disengage from criminal activity.

But it seems we'd rather punish junkies and treat them like sub-human zombies.

not all 'addicts' fit the stereotype anyhoo.

One guy I know has a truly massive habit, but he's never resorted to crime. You might hate window-washers at traffic lights, but I admire him. He works his arse off and though he has to contend with regular police harrassment, he earns his money.

Or a former colleague of mine who worked full time in womens refuges and shelters helping others, then did sex work all night because it was the only way she could make enough money to stave off the agony of withdrawal.

Or the physician who becomes addicted to pain killers after an accident and leads an other wise normal life as an 'upstanding' member of the community and family man.

People who use drugs, addicted or not, are capable of being good parents - which is not to say all 'addicts' are good parents. People who dont use drugs are not all good parents, and are just as capable of being bad parents.

So we target the most vulnerable and ignore the rest? And what about alcoholics - the source of more violence and abuse than anything else? These 'Project Prevention' people should be out the front of the local bottlo or pokies-parlour on pension day.

'Why dont these people just go and get help', 'why dont they just get off the drugs', 'go get the help you desperately need you scum bag'....

Know where most discrimination occurs against drug dependant people? - in the health care system. No, not because they're just trying to score some prescribed drugs - but because injecting is pretty much the most stigmatised behaviour in our culture. Right up there with pedophilia in some peoples minds.

Great way to ensure people do not return, or even access health care services. It's hard enough getting people into a NSP....and even then many dependent people dont feel entitiled to health care, and believe they deserve everything that's coming to them, whether its liver cirrhosis, heart failure, blood poisoning, sleeping rough or a painful lingering death. The garbage of society - irredeemible.

Money would be, and is, better spent on programs that help people to heal themselves, not punish them or single them out.

I'd just like to add that i fully support birth control for people who do not want, or whos lives are too 'chaotic', to care for children.

But I do not agree offering people money to get sterilised is ethical.

Sorry to bang on and derail the discussion, this is something I feel quite passionate about.

Edited October 23, 2010 by wandjina

[Distracted]

Just a random interjection...

I always find it funny how people talking about criminals learning things in prisons... to me it's common sense to NOT listen to the people who got caught and instead listen to the people who've managed to avoid prison time :D

However on subject, France requires you to have a licence if you want to own a 'dangerous' dog, the UK wants to follow down the same path. Most people I know are a LOT more dangerous than dogs but we're free to spread the dangers.

That's all humour btw... don't read too much into it.

This whole thing stinks of unethical treatment

[Sonny Jim]

Thanks Wandjina

You have summed up the way I feel about this topic and then some!