Scottish Drug Deaths

[irc]

As we know drug deaths in Scotland are the highest in the world. Scotland with 8% of the UK population has more than a quarter of the drug deaths.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/27/drug-c...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48853004

Today there was a Radio Scotland phone in with a few people claiming a large part of the solution could be drug rooms where addicts could take their drugs under medical supervision. Scotland was being prevented from setting up these rooms on a pilot study basis as drug laws are not devolved and the UK govt declined to agree.

I'm not so sure they are the answer. As one caller pointed out users don't tend to travel for their fix. So one center in central Glasgow wouldn't solve much.

The cost would be substantial. Leaving aside the cost of buildings, electricity, etc the staff costs would be big. Assuming open 16 hours a day 7 days a week. Say 2 nurses and 1 reception/security. Probably 10 full time staff minimum to cover that. getting on for £400-£500k once all employment costs are covered. Maybe with building costs £1M a year for each center. Serious money to equip every area in Scotland.

Meanwhile the drug treatment budgent in Scotland is being cut, not increased.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...

Another point - last year the 2018 drug death stats were released in July. We are now in Sept and we still don't know if the problem got better or worse in 2019. A drugs crisis with a task force appointed and the time for basic things like measuring the problem is getting longer.

[hiccy18]

The fundamental problem with drug treatment is prohibition itself. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts yet all are commiting criminal acts and funding organised crime. Until such time as the root cause of drug related criminality itself is addressed then addiction treatment is going to continue to face an awkward struggle balancing lives against lawfulness. The concept of a moral argument dictating what an individual can and cannot consume should be consigned to the history books and recognised as the great folly of the 20th century.

[anonymous-user]

After working in Scotland for several months, I realised that Trainspotting was actually a documentary.

[survivalist]

irc said:

As we know drug deaths in Scotland are the highest in the world. Scotland with 8% of the UK population has more than a quarter of the drug deaths.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/27/drug-c...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48853004

Today there was a Radio Scotland phone in with a few people claiming a large part of the solution could be drug rooms where addicts could take their drugs under medical supervision. Scotland was being prevented from setting up these rooms on a pilot study basis as drug laws are not devolved and the UK govt declined to agree.

I'm not so sure they are the answer. As one caller pointed out users don't tend to travel for their fix. So one center in central Glasgow wouldn't solve much.

The cost would be substantial. Leaving aside the cost of buildings, electricity, etc the staff costs would be big. Assuming open 16 hours a day 7 days a week. Say 2 nurses and 1 reception/security. Probably 10 full time staff minimum to cover that. getting on for £400-£500k once all employment costs are covered. Maybe with building costs £1M a year for each center. Serious money to equip every area in Scotland.

Meanwhile the drug treatment budgent in Scotland is being cut, not increased.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...

Another point - last year the 2018 drug death stats were released in July. We are now in Sept and we still don't know if the problem got better or worse in 2019. A drugs crisis with a task force appointed and the time for basic things like measuring the problem is getting longer.

The costs of carrying on with the same approach we have now are likely much higher. Cost of funding rehab and counselling programs with a very low success rates, cost of drug related crime and the associated police costs. Not to mention the social impact of said drug related crimes - shoplifting, burglary, mugging etc

Unless Scotland is significantly different to England they will already have counselling centres and needle exchanges.

It seems to me that a fresh approach is needed as the we’ve been following for the last 20+ years isn’t delivering the desired approach.

[Derek Smith]

hiccy18 said:

The fundamental problem with drug treatment is prohibition itself. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts yet all are commiting criminal acts and funding organised crime. Until such time as the root cause of drug related criminality itself is addressed then addiction treatment is going to continue to face an awkward struggle balancing lives against lawfulness. The concept of a moral argument dictating what an individual can and cannot consume should be consigned to the history books and recognised as the great folly of the 20th century.

survivalist said:

The costs of carrying on with the same approach we have now are likely much higher. Cost of funding rehab and counselling programs with a very low success rates, cost of drug related crime and the associated police costs. Not to mention the social impact of said drug related crimes - shoplifting, burglary, mugging etc

Unless Scotland is significantly different to England they will already have counselling centres and needle exchanges.

It seems to me that a fresh approach is needed as the we’ve been following for the last 20+ years isn’t delivering the desired approach.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are policing drugs badly. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune. It is costing our children their lives.

We had an ex-druggie as a permanent resident in our cells, there for any prisoner to talk with on drugs problems. He was an intelligent chap, interesting to listen to on the subject. He gave his story and those of others he knew, many deceased. So many start as kids, doing what most kids do; something stupid.

If drugs were available via official outlets, the crime rate would drop, burglaries in particular.

Ask most people today and they'll know that prohibition in the US financed the gangs and gave them power. It's strange that they can't see the parallel.

If we revert to the controlling of Class A as we did before the dreadful '71 Drugs Act, the gangs would have their source of income slashed, as well as a significant level of leverage. We'll never put the genie back in the bottle, but we can mitigate some of the problems we've cause, and reduce the number of offenders.

There will still remain the illegal trade of course, but it will be limited.

[glazbagun]

I have this saved on my phone, I think from 2018-19. I wonder what corellations you could slap on top of it:

[J4CKO]

Shows how bad things are, they even used a Tartan as the key for that map.

[anonymous-user]

It’ll be fine once they’re independent. They’ll have all the money they need from the EU then...........

[likesachange]

Lord Marylebone said:

After working in Scotland for several months, I realised that Trainspotting was actually a documentary.

This.

Working as a Roofer in Scotland for many many months we got to see some sights.

Very Sad tbh.

I mean you drive to work at 7am and there will be old guys standing outside pubs with a beer and a fag!

You'd see toothless zombie looking individuals in bushes with literally no hope. Sadly death would be a more peaceful place. Tragic.

The strangest most bizarre incident was when we were up on the roof watching this guy weaving left to right all the way up the street falling down, grabbing hold of anything he could on way up street to get stability. He got to a point where he was really struggling and started arguing with lamp post and falling down etc etc.. this went on for at least 10 minutes, then all of a sudden it was like his alarm went off! ( it was before 8am) He looked at his watch and though 5h&t! I better get to work. He just wandered off with his rucksack as sober as a judge! Made me think there must have been some other issue to him than drink and drugs?!?

[Gecko1978]

obviously the population density is different in north of Scotland v south east but what are we in the south east doing right that we are doing wrong in scotland. Given drugs are equally as illegal in both areas and arguably access to drugs must be easier in major cities.

Looking at that map does not lead to think decriminalization is the magic pill (it might make some things massively better) but surely its about changing attitudes. Alcohol is legal and its still killing people in the north more than in the south why is that.

[glazbagun]

The map records deaths, so things like fast emercency care/even being noticed, etc might be harder in rural areas. I'm not sure if an area as big as the highlands can tell us much as it's so vast and sparsely populated.

Then you have terrible weather and employment opportunities which were the first two which sprang to my mind. Ignoring the obvious city=drugs link.

Looking at the map it seems to be a Northern Britain problem as much as a Scottish one.

[Gecko1978]

glazbagun said:

The map records deaths, so things like fast emercency care/even being noticed, etc might be harder in rural areas. I'm not sure if an area as big as the highlands can tell us much as it's so vast and sparsely populated.

Then you have terrible weather and employment opportunities which were the first two which sprang to my mind. Ignoring the obvious city=drugs link.

Looking at the map it seems to be a Northern Britain problem as much as a Scottish one.

So would you agree that prohibition or a reversal is not the magic pill. My feeling has always been if beer were discovered just this week it would be illegal. We tend to ban things that can cause us harm. However during prohibution in the US people drank low quality alcohol which cased much illness and lead to a lot of crime so there is an argument for removing the restrictions. But would making heroin available at Tesco make a difference would it stop people becoming drug dependent an resorting to crime to fund the habit (the habit itself not being illegal).

We need to look at why we are going down that path, jobs, the climate might all play a part. Personally I would rather be wet an unemployed than a junkie but then again I have not lived without hope of changing that and maybe that is the reason.

[J4CKO]

I used to spend a fair bit of time in Aberdeen, on an industrial park near the docks (Miller St) and saw a few sights there, would see used condoms and syringes strewn round, apparently this was the prostitutes and though I never saw it, apparently it wasnt uncommon if you were working late to hear a prostitute doing business against the wall of the unit.

Did see a few folk absolutely trashed in the morning as well, swigging high strength lager. Not really any worse than bits of Manchester, certainly not as bad as Piccadilly gardens these days.

[rxe]

Gecko1978 said:

So would you agree that prohibition or a reversal is not the magic pill. My feeling has always been if beer were discovered just this week it would be illegal. We tend to ban things that can cause us harm. However during prohibution in the US people drank low quality alcohol which cased much illness and lead to a lot of crime so there is an argument for removing the restrictions. But would making heroin available at Tesco make a difference would it stop people becoming drug dependent an resorting to crime to fund the habit (the habit itself not being illegal).

We need to look at why we are going down that path, jobs, the climate might all play a part. Personally I would rather be wet an unemployed than a junkie but then again I have not lived without hope of changing that and maybe that is the reason.

IMO part of the problem is boredom, and unemployment certainly plays into that. I’d be a crap alcoholic, I hate drinking at lunchtime because I have too much to do in the afternoon. The idea of drinking for breakfast is just bizarre. But if you’re unemployed with bugger all to do, then getting pissed up or stoned is probably more attractive.

Policy is trying to address too many problems at the same time, Prohibition attempts to reduce the amount of available harm, but there are people out there with the sort of personalities that seek harm. Drugs, booze, fags, gambling, chips .... in roughly that order. These people are different to the millions of other people who can dabble in harmful substances and walk away from them.

If you wind back prohibition, then crime collapses, because there is no easy source of income for the criminals. Good. But the flip side is that all your uncontrolled addictive people will kill themselves in short order, just as thousands of them do with booze today. On the flip side, the rest of the population can smoke a joint on Saturday evening knowing what is in it, and then go to work on Monday without being robbed by a druggie.

Policy is paralysed because (as we can see with COVID) dead people on telly looks bad. We’re not going to relax prohibition because loads of dead addicts will be on the 6 o’clock news having used government supplied drugs to kill themselves,

[louiebaby]

I am no expert, so interested to learn from others.

There are a number of different costs associated with drug taking:

Buying them in the first place is expensive from a cash perspective. This is down to limited supply caused primarily by the illegal nature of it. This is a barrier to entry for some, but for others it is the key driver for criminal activity. It is also a key driver for those of low morals to get involved in the supply. "Your first try is free." Knowing full well that one dose is all it takes.

Legalising Class A drugs won't make them any cheaper. There is too much money to be made, and can you imagine the ramifications of making Class A drugs cheap and available to all? The Criminal element of taking them might be removed but the need to commit crime to buy them will remain.

What legalising MAY do is improve the quality of the product. I don't know what percentage of deaths are attributed to impurities or not knowing the strength of what you're getting, but it is significant.

Taking away the danger of contaminated drugs, and the power from the criminal gangs who supply may be worth legalisation, but what are the other knock on effects?

I'm watching the pot revolution in America relatively closely to see what happens. There's a lot of corporate money going into it...

[FunkyNige]

Gecko1978 said:

So would you agree that prohibition or a reversal is not the magic pill. My feeling has always been if beer were discovered just this week it would be illegal. We tend to ban things that can cause us harm. However during prohibution in the US people drank low quality alcohol which cased much illness and lead to a lot of crime so there is an argument for removing the restrictions. But would making heroin available at Tesco make a difference would it stop people becoming drug dependent an resorting to crime to fund the habit (the habit itself not being illegal).

We need to look at why we are going down that path, jobs, the climate might all play a part. Personally I would rather be wet an unemployed than a junkie but then again I have not lived without hope of changing that and maybe that is the reason.

(my bold)
People are saying different drugs would be available in different places, so the relatively safe drugs would be available using a similar model to cigarettes now (ie. licensed premises, age checks, etc.) and the drugs like heroin would be prescribed at a safe location where other help is on hand to help the addicts break the habit, etc. I know there's an argument saying safe places aren't helpful as these people don't travel far to get their fix, but there's also talk of them not wanting to travel because if they get caught with heroin in their pockets they are looking at a long jail sentence.

It's not a simple topic and we desperately need a grown up conversation about it without people resorting to "I should be allowed to put whatever I want into me" and "You're saying you want heroin available next to the Haribo in Asda".

Former undercover police officer Neil Woods speaks well on the topic, it's well worth your time to listen to podcasts he's on

Tim Lovevoy podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=65E5R...

Scroobius Pip podcast
https://play.acast.com/s/distractionpieces/neilwoo...

[Gecko1978]

rxe said:

IMO part of the problem is boredom, and unemployment certainly plays into that. I’d be a crap alcoholic, I hate drinking at lunchtime because I have too much to do in the afternoon. The idea of drinking for breakfast is just bizarre. But if you’re unemployed with bugger all to do, then getting pissed up or stoned is probably more attractive.

Policy is trying to address too many problems at the same time, Prohibition attempts to reduce the amount of available harm, but there are people out there with the sort of personalities that seek harm. Drugs, booze, fags, gambling, chips .... in roughly that order. These people are different to the millions of other people who can dabble in harmful substances and walk away from them.

If you wind back prohibition, then crime collapses, because there is no easy source of income for the criminals. Good. But the flip side is that all your uncontrolled addictive people will kill themselves in short order, just as thousands of them do with booze today. On the flip side, the rest of the population can smoke a joint on Saturday evening knowing what is in it, and then go to work on Monday without being robbed by a druggie.

Policy is paralysed because (as we can see with COVID) dead people on telly looks bad. We’re not going to relax prohibition because loads of dead addicts will be on the 6 o’clock news having used government supplied drugs to kill themselves,

Can't disagree with any of that well written and that is the crux of it.

[louiebaby]

Gecko1978 said:

rxe said:

IMO part of the problem is boredom, and unemployment certainly plays into that. I’d be a crap alcoholic, I hate drinking at lunchtime because I have too much to do in the afternoon. The idea of drinking for breakfast is just bizarre. But if you’re unemployed with bugger all to do, then getting pissed up or stoned is probably more attractive.

Policy is trying to address too many problems at the same time, Prohibition attempts to reduce the amount of available harm, but there are people out there with the sort of personalities that seek harm. Drugs, booze, fags, gambling, chips .... in roughly that order. These people are different to the millions of other people who can dabble in harmful substances and walk away from them.

If you wind back prohibition, then crime collapses, because there is no easy source of income for the criminals. Good. But the flip side is that all your uncontrolled addictive people will kill themselves in short order, just as thousands of them do with booze today. On the flip side, the rest of the population can smoke a joint on Saturday evening knowing what is in it, and then go to work on Monday without being robbed by a druggie.

Policy is paralysed because (as we can see with COVID) dead people on telly looks bad. We’re not going to relax prohibition because loads of dead addicts will be on the 6 o’clock news having used government supplied drugs to kill themselves,

Can't disagree with any of that well written and that is the crux of it.

Yeah, I wish I'd read that before I made my post. The points are probably made in a better way.

[Murph7355]

irc said:

As we know drug deaths in Scotland are the highest in the world. Scotland with 8% of the UK population has more than a quarter of the drug deaths.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/27/drug-c...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48853004

...

Crikey. Never knew that - genuinely eye opening.

Explains why the SNP get the votes they do. (And in all seriousness, look at when those charts seemed to take off almost exponentially....shocking).

[Evercross]

Murph7355 said:

Explains why the SNP get the votes they do. (And in all seriousness, look at when those charts seemed to take off almost exponentially....shocking).

The numbers have skyrocketed since the SNP took over.

It is actually one of the scandals of the SNP's scorched earth policy regarding devolution. There are plenty who believe the SNP have precipitated this issue by drastically cutting funding for drug rehabilitation in order to foment yet another grievance, because as everyone up here knows - when a budget is cut the SNP point the finger at Westminster.

Choosing the drug issue is a particularly clever one because while the health aspects are devolved (which is where the cuts have been made) the legal ones are not, which is why the SNP are pushing the whole 'drug rooms' thing as the answer because they know it is something they do not have the power to implement, so gives them and their supporters something else to blame big bad old England Westminster for.

The SNP play politics with everything, including drug deaths it seems.