Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That said, I am pretty sure there are rules about serving intoxicated people, and whoever served that man was very much in the wrong.


It is actually an offence to serve someone that is intoxicated, for which you can be fined. Every licence holder knows that - and that goes for bars and retailers alike.

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> Is that an actual fact?



Of course it's a fact....think of all the people you've ever known that drink alcohol, and how many of them can't get through a day without being drunk or drinking a substantial amount of alcohol?

http://www.blackpoppy.org.uk/index.html


Black Poppy is a magazine which has been going for many years now. The people who put this together are drug users

and ex users who would like to be part of the solution instead of the problem. They have taken on many issues and

helped users to become more informed about there choices in drug taking.


Click on link for new website

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> that there are also functional heroin addicts and

> recreational users that are perfectly capable of

> keeping it under control.

>

> Yes they exist but most users of heroin are

> completely messed up by it. I'd even argue that

> most of the people I have known that regularly use

> any kinds of drugs recreationally are messed up

> too. Now it might be that heroin is an 'addicts'

> choice of drug...i.e. that most people just

> looking for a buzz would choose something else

> before heroin but I think to try and water down

> the impact and nature of heroin as something that

> can be kept under control is not a view that most

> doctors and drugs workers would take (not that I

> am saying that you are watering down it's impact).

>

>

> Heroine, on the other hand, is the only drug that

> mice in labs will work for and choose over food.

>

> I think that demonstrates perfectly the addictive

> nature of the drug. It has the power to make

> addicts of people rather than being used by those

> who are addictive. Heroin causes physiological

> addiction. Some will be strong enough to resist

> that, but most users aren't. A few pints of beer

> will never turn you into an alcoholic in

> themselves.

>

> My father was an alcoholic and I thnk most people

> have experience of that more than they might know

> someone afflicted by heroin. But the fact still

> remains that the vast majority of people who drink

> alcohol do so sensibly.




Okay then let me put it differently. Most heroine users are probably addicts. But there are for more alcohol users (as you point out), so statistically it is not a stretch to suggest that there are probably more alcoholics that heroin addicts (I won't state that as fact because it can't be measured!). I don't actually know any heroin users (that I'm aware of) but I know plenty of alcohol addicts or at least alcohol abusers. Fine line.


And it's not generally acceptable to go for lunch with your boss and shoot up, but feeding your booze addiction is fine, so how do we know frequency of dosing?


Honestly it feels stupid to get into a pissing match over which addiction is worse. Amy Winehouse was just as addicted to one substance as the next because she was an addict. Sadly her rock bottom was death.

But as a percentage of all people that drink alcohol there are less alcoholics. Look at the percentage of heroin users that are addicts and is going to be higher, mainly because of the psysiological addictive nature of the drug....all the data, stats and medical evidence support that (although I acknowledge that some heroin use is going to be hidden because of the illegal aspect). And it's an important distinction to make when considering issues of legalisation or control.


How do you define an alcoholic? Having a glass of wine at lunch is not alcoholism. Nor is having a glass of wine at the end of the day with your dinner. But if you can't have a meal without drinking alcohol then that is a form of addiction yes.....but is it harmful? One glass of wine a day is not going to do much damage to most people's bodies or state of mind.


My father was an alocohic. I know the differnce between that and someone having a glass of wine at lunch.


Amy Winehouse wasn't always an addict. And maybe if she'd kept different company she'd never have taken heroin.

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> DJKillaQueen

> >

> > Heroine, on the other hand, is the only drug

> that

> > mice in labs will work for and choose over

> food.

> >

> > I think that demonstrates perfectly


> >....that even mice on heroin can work

No I was pointing out that heroin is the most addictive substance tested on rats. Which is why I also pointed out that most (all?) heroin addicts were addicted to something else first. And not all addicts will make the leap to heroin, so there are actually less heroin addicts than other kinds. I don't see a debate in it's addictive qualities, why bother?



And if you look at the psychopathology of addiction, it can be as simple as a glass of wine with dinner, depending on why you have it. It's about WHY, not about HOW, they administer. Most or many addicts I think use it as some version of self-medication. They're sometimes the people at Sainsbury's adding that extra bottle of wine to the cart.

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> No I was pointing out that heroin is the most

> addictive substance tested on rats. Which is why

> I also pointed out that most (all?) heroin addicts

> were addicted to something else first. And not

> all addicts will make the leap to heroin, so there

> are actually less heroin addicts than other kinds.

> I don't see a debate in it's addictive qualities,

> why bother?

>

>

> And if you look at the psychopathology of

> addiction, it can be as simple as a glass of wine

> with dinner, depending on why you have it. It's

> about WHY, not about HOW, they administer. Most

> or many addicts I think use it as some version of

> self-medication. They're sometimes the people at

> Sainsbury's adding that extra bottle of wine to

> the cart.


Yep, completely agree HH.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But as a percentage of all people that drink

> alcohol there are less alcoholics. Look at the

> percentage of heroin users that are addicts and is

> going to be higher, mainly because of the

> psysiological addictive nature of the drug....all

> the data, stats and medical evidence support that

> (although I acknowledge that some heroin use is

> going to be hidden because of the illegal aspect).

> And it's an important distinction to make when

> considering issues of legalisation or control.

>


This is an interesting spin on experiments of how addiction effects rats. Science is never black and white and neither is addiction.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

I think the point HH was trying to make was how would you measure how many recreational heroin users there are as they are not likely to be as public in their use as recreational drinkers.


I know of a couple of functioning addicts and recreational users of heroin, but there may be others who remain undetected in our community because they hold down a job and can afford to buy decent gear.


I think we need to look at what works and what doesn't. Prohibition has blatantly failed and criminalised users and suppliers. It's a waste of resources and a massive waste of people's lives.


People want to imbibe mood altering substances for whatever reason, be they heroin, alcohol or other drugs. That is a fact of life. Why not decriminalise those substances, control and tax them?


Take the supply out if the of the criminal multi-million pounds drugs trade. Use the revenue to improve treatment for people who have become addicted and stop the murders that go hand in hand with the fight for control of the illegal trade in drugs.

Heinz Wrote:

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

> Sorry to reiterate, but about what the human right

> to do with one person what one pleases...I think I

> should be allowed to do with myself what I

> want,and so should you.


But surely if that doesn't impinge on other members of society - because you cannot do your job so someone has to cover, because you have to commit a crime to pay for whatever substance you are indulging in, because your friends and family are adversely affected by your behaviour, or because limited NHS funds have to be used in order to assist you if and when your addiction affects your health.


However if you can indulge without affecting anyone else - then why not!

People are addicted to gambling, food, smoking, prescription drugs etc, although these all may be legal just

wondering if above posters feel these peoples choices should also be questioned.


I agree with LadyDeliah about decriminalization, but feel a close watch would be needed and a strong connection

between goverment to the streets.

Decriminalisation won't remove the criminal element. Just look at the criminal gangs making fake booze and cigarettes or importing duty free. The border agenices and Police are just as rubbish at controlling that. The gangs selling illegal drugs will still sell them, just undercutting the tax and perhaps watering the substances down further. And as is the case is now, the poorest will buy from the criminals.


Street prtices for drugs like cocaine and ecstacy have fallen dramatically over the last two decades. The governments principle is to tax heavily anything that may be detrimental to health (by way of discouraging use). I personally can not see any form of decriminalistion that will improve anything much (apart from making purer/ safer versions legally available for those that can afford them) - although I think LadyD's point about redirecting tax into resources to help those that get into trouble is a good one (but can't see any government doing that - how much of the tax on cigarettes goes towards helping people to quit for example?).

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Decriminalisation won't remove the criminal

> element. Just look at the criminal gangs making

> fake booze and cigarettes or importing duty free.

> The border agenices and Police are just as rubbish

> at controlling that. The gangs selling illegal

> drugs will still sell them, just undercutting the

> tax and perhaps watering the substances down

> further. And as is the case is now, the poorest

> will buy from the criminals.



Not sure how many murders occur overe these illegal activities though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13944209


It seems they are still prescribing heroin in London. (link)


I think it's a good idea, if people being prescribed methadone are selling it for heroin, and this is well known,

Isn't the system encouraging a black market, it used to be cheaper to prescribe heroin than methadone, not

sure if that is still the case.

Totally agree.


A new rehab clinic is great and all that, but it's a sticky plaster on a gaping wound!


Present with mental health issues these days, and you might (if you're lucky), get 6 sessions of CBT (having waited at least a coupl of months). CBT has it's place, but frankly, 6 sessions isn't going to do a lot, and CBT isn't the answer for everyone.


Mental Health services are absolutely shocking in this country! Not the fault of the professionals who work in it, but the fact there are not enough of them, and it isn't taken seriously by the people holding the purse strings. They pay lip servie to it, and little more.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...