In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
John Watson) wrote:

> *From:* Dr John Watson 
> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
> 
> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
> 
> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
> > think
> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
> 
> Possibly here?
> 
> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
> 
> -- 
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
> 
> 
That article is pretty good and broadly accurate. It misses out some of the history,
the parallel illegal heroin market ( Number 3 & 4 Chinese Heroin at the end of the
60s), the feeding of the illegal market by those who had scrips (selling some of
their scrip). It implies that these users stopped dealing, they did not (though
some no doubt did). Also first time and early users did not get their supplies from
a direct scrip so the illegal market was still there. I have memories of the
chemical gulag created around Boots on Piccadilly at midnight, the users lying in
the gutter, the trips to Vine Street Police Station etc

The article is just slightly wrong on the explosion of use in the 70s, it was (in
London) pot smokers taking on board Iranian smoking heroin. It was not primarily
injecting then even though prices were high. In Edinburgh it was morphine imported
by a small group of one time hippies.  Did the article mention Hepatitis? Bigger
problem than HIV for  injecting users-I think. Unprotected sex between injecting
users brought to one point for drug supplies or clean works is a bigger problem
than dirty needles.

There is a quite recently published book by Bing Spear (posthumous) I have a copy
somewhere. There is also an older book on the "British System" by my old friend
Professor Arnold Trebach-father of the legalisation movement. I used to debate this
with him and his students in the early seventies.

Bing Spear was very worried by the over prescription that took place before special
licences were needed. The system was therefore largely killed by untrustworthy
medics!

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:

>In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>John Watson) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Dr John Watson 
>> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>> 
>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>> 
>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
>> > think
>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>> 
>> Possibly here?
>> 
>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr John Watson
>> Baker Street
>> 
>> 
>That article is pretty good and broadly accurate. It misses out some of the history,
>the parallel illegal heroin market ( Number 3 & 4 Chinese Heroin at the end of the
>60s), the feeding of the illegal market by those who had scrips (selling some of
>their scrip). It implies that these users stopped dealing, they did not (though
>some no doubt did). Also first time and early users did not get their supplies from
>a direct scrip so the illegal market was still there. I have memories of the
>chemical gulag created around Boots on Piccadilly at midnight, the users lying in
>the gutter, the trips to Vine Street Police Station etc
>
>The article is just slightly wrong on the explosion of use in the 70s, it was (in
>London) pot smokers taking on board Iranian smoking heroin. It was not primarily
>injecting then even though prices were high. In Edinburgh it was morphine imported
>by a small group of one time hippies.  Did the article mention Hepatitis? Bigger
>problem than HIV for  injecting users-I think. Unprotected sex between injecting
>users brought to one point for drug supplies or clean works is a bigger problem
>than dirty needles.
>
>There is a quite recently published book by Bing Spear (posthumous) I have a copy
>somewhere. There is also an older book on the "British System" by my old friend
>Professor Arnold Trebach-father of the legalisation movement. I used to debate this
>with him and his students in the early seventies.
>
>Bing Spear was very worried by the over prescription that took place before special
>licences were needed. The system was therefore largely killed by untrustworthy
>medics!
yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
do you think there are now?
-- 

Dystopia

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:40 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>
>>In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>>John Watson) wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Dr John Watson 
>>> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>>> 
>>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>>> 
>>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
>>> > think
>>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>>> 
>>> Possibly here?
>>> 
>>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327

>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>do you think there are now?

We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
the tens of thousands and still falling.

Svenne

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:05:14 GMT, Svenne  wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:40 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>>
>>>In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>>>John Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> *From:* Dr John Watson 
>>>> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>>>> 
>>>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>>>> 
>>>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>>>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
>>>> > think
>>>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly here?
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
>
>>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>>do you think there are now?
>
>We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
>the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
>the tens of thousands and still falling.
>
>Svenne
You are kidding aren't you?
-- 

Dystopia

Noticed at Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:45:34 +0100: Dystopia informed us:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:05:14 GMT, Svenne  wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:40 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>>>>John Watson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Dr John Watson 
>>>>> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>>>>> 
>>>>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>>>>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
>>>>> > think
>>>>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
>>
>>>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>>>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>>>do you think there are now?
>>
>>We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
>>the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
>>the tens of thousands and still falling.
>>
>>Svenne

> You are kidding aren't you?

Surely no Government would spend billions of our money for no reward?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:45:34 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:

>>>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>>>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>>>do you think there are now?

>>We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
>>the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
>>the tens of thousands and still falling.

>You are kidding aren't you?

You don't suggest that prohibition, which  protects us from the evils
of drugs, doesn't work, do you?

After all these years and all the expense and all the efort effort it
must work or we wouldn't be doing it, would we?

Svenne

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:45:34 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:05:14 GMT, Svenne  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:40 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article , drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr
>>>>John Watson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Dr John Watson 
>>>>> *Date:* Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>>>>> 
>>>>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>>>>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to 
>>>>> > think
>>>>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
>>
>>>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>>>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>>>do you think there are now?
>>
>>We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
>>the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
>>the tens of thousands and still falling.
>>
>>Svenne
>You are kidding aren't you?
Joking apart is there any figure for the current number of heroine
addicts?
-- 

Dystopia

Noticed at Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:12:42 +0100: Dystopia informed us:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:45:34 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:05:14 GMT, Svenne  wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:40 +0100, Dystopia  wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43 +0100 (BST), Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com (Dr John Watson) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Dr John Watson  *Date:* Tue,
>>>>>> 17 Jun 2008 14:11:51 +0100
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Noticed at Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:15 +0100: Dystopia informed us:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > I remember meeting people in the late sixties who were registered
>>>>>> > addicts and got their drugs on prescription.   I was trying to
>>>>>> > think
>>>>>> > when the law changed but cannot remember. Can anyone help?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Possibly here?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.badscience.net/?p=327
>>>
>>>>yes its an interesting and informative essay. Goldacre reckons there
>>>>were probably between 100,000 and 160,000 addicts in 1994.  How many
>>>>do you think there are now?
>>>
>>>We have had years of intensive and expensive prohibition since then so
>>>the number of addicts will have dropped tremendously. Probably down to
>>>the tens of thousands and still falling.
>>>
>>>Svenne
>>You are kidding aren't you?

> Joking apart is there any figure for the current number of heroine
> addicts?

According to this article, 280,000. There were 5,000 in 1975 (and 47 in
1955). This shows the vast success of our prohibition policy in increasing
use, harm, social disorder and soldiers deaths in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548706/Drug-policies-leave-Britain-bottom-of-table.html

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street