Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Study after study has shown that the only way to reduce levels of use os to plough to

e and effort (hance obviously money) onto the social side of social care, treat addiction and education.


Sadly it's a nn starter politically hence we carry on pouring resources into customs and policing which has consistently done little more than paper over the cracks.


But as with all solutions that are difficult, long term, hard to quantify and downright unsexy (leaving alone the soft on crime inference among daily mail readers) it's unpopular politically.


Leave alone that the police have been saying this for years, leave alone that nabbing some teenage dealer achieves little but to put another kid in the incredibly damaging juvenile secure estate system. ...


God what a bleeding heart liberal I am ;)

The fact that many of the 'elders' are in jail or dead also leaves us with 14, 15 and 16 year olds with guns running the streets - Lord of the Flies stuff. Anyone read the 'Freakeconomics' chapter on drug dealers, 'Why most drug dealers live with their moms(sic)"? Fascinating stuff on the economics of drug dealing.

Yes Quids, that was a fascinating account of young drug dealers.


We heard again the claim this morning on the radio (BBC R4) that it's 'under control', but perhaps my idea of control and theirs differ substantially. I feel if they had to provide a complete account, including all the adverse social and economic consequences their policies, it would be clearly be seen how seriously their policies have failed to date.

I feel quite qualified to talk on this subject, having worked in substance use for the last 12 years.


Sadly I have not got a bleeding clue what to do about it! :( One thing though, it is far from under control. The Anti Social Behaviour and violence / misery surrounding the heroin / crack underclass is shocking and is pretty much totally ignored by the police imo! :(

I don't see a reason why drugs shouldn't be treated like any other commodity, and in that sense I think that you guys are taking too local a perspective.


If we can legislate against Blood Diamonds, we can legislate against Blood Snort.


You'll struggle to encounter a nipper on the street who would fight for Blood Diamonds, but they'll be oh so keen to glam it up with their mates to show off a talc moustache.


In that sense I concur with Mockney on education, but consider social care and treatment to be regressive policies that are self-perpetuating. You're treating the symptoms, not the disease.

Indeed, but it's those symptoms thy affect the quality of life for everyone, whether in the spirAlmof poverty an violence on the streets or whether you have your tires nicked or get scammed for cash in Barry rd.


No ne has cone up with a cure in the half a century we've been fighting this 'war on drugs' if you have any suggestions I'd like to hear them.


Diamonds are a much much smaller Market and more easily legislated for, not least because the product itself isn't illegal.

Well, you know me.


I'd be happy with 48-sheets on roads and tube stations showing dismembered corpses in the Colombian jungle, with a tag line saying 'That was fun wasn't it? Fancy a shag?'


I don't think it's fair to characterise recreational drug taking as a clinical issue that needs resolution through the NHS.


Your average housing estate dealer isn't watching an ECG, he's buying stolen BMWs and putting neon lights underneath.

Well I'm with you there. Iguess we need to differentiate the difference with drug use ground on social ills and purely recreational use (assuming just for a moment that there's no grey area).


The former requires social help and attention from outreach trams to urban regeneration, the latter needs decriminalisation.


We know we can't halt supply or demand and education will only achieve so much. I knw plenty of folks who will buy organic bacause of the thought of suffering chickens but will do a guilty shrug at the thought of the suffering the cocaine trade causes before tucking into a line.

Sean, I think you could argue that many people will do the guilty shrug for the things they aren't prepared to give up.


If you have enough spare cash, it's no great sacrifice to give up battery eggs and intensively farmed meat. Likewise, if locally produced organic cocaine were available (sold in little hemp bags) then I'm sure the well-off consumer would tuck in and happily boast about it at dinner parties.


The same applies to clothing. If there were a universally accepted kite-mark style grading system for high-street clothes and it were relatively easy to choose between Naughty Clothes and Good Clothes, then the pressure on large suppliers to get better grades would be tremendous. But asking the average consumer to buy all their clothes online from expensive and relatively unknown ethical brands is not going to happen.


Sorry M. Chair - a little off topic there.

I never said anything about buying expensive clothes


And nor am I picking on people with small incomes - a lot of well off people go mental in Primark


I was just tying in with Piers point that the legality of drugs (or otherwise) doesn't help the exploitation across the chain, but legalising it won't necessarily help on that score


I don't know what the solution is but agree with everyone who says that what we are doing clearly isn't working - and that it should be possible to explore (like Bunny!) alternatives without a tabloid frenzy. SHOULD be possible, But obviously won't be

Goodness me, I had no idea I was disagreeing with you - I just thought you had made a point that one could apply more widely.


I agree that legality doesn't affect the argument at all - my point was simply that if you can easily afford to be ethical, then many people will pay more to do it but will not sacrifice the item altogether.


Back more directly on topic, programmes that tackle poverty can surely be tools in helping people stay away from drugs without being politically unacceptable? After all, the 'Bunny' experiment wasn't about helping drug addicts but about helping neighbourhoods live without a drug problem..

I know what you're getting at Mou? but I think it's off the mark to say legality has nothing to do with it. As muh as there is lamentable exploitation of labour in countries less inclined to care (though no worsethan here a century ago) you don't find sweatshops bombing each other in turf wars or so rich due to artificaly inflated prices that they can take on the government.


Mexico have just committed more troops to one border town that is effectvely a war zone, than the uk have to Afghanistan and there have been 20000 deaths in the multifacted drug wars there in the last two years alone.

International decriminilisation would go along way to ending that sort of violence, suffering and the accompanying corruption.

Whilst I see the points behind the concept of addiction itself as fuel to the trade, I have to confess to getting a little bored of the constant stream of unrelenting wooly symapthy for those involved at street level. I'm not claiming for a second to understand the precipitating circumstances of each and every individual, nor do I think that the trade is dented for more than a second by putting a 17 year old dealer behind bars, but the concept that one can take a premeditated act with long term consequences for all involved that is against the law and absolve the involved parties on the grounds that "there's a bigger picture, that's where we should focus our efforts" does not ring true to me. Because it has significant implications regarding a variable tier of laws and their significance, and continues down a line of individuals failing to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions which, though potentially politically and ethically appropriate for the issue at hand, sets a dangerous standard. I come down on the bleeding heart liberal side 95 times out of 100 on this forum, but I think this is a situation where 50/50 is more called for: I agree that targetting social welfare, poverty, unemployment and addiction will have profound effects on the drug trade, but I'm not sure ignoring the traders in the meantime is necessarily constructive, regardless of how pitiable their circumstances may be.

blimey, paragraphs!


I don't think anyone was suggesting a woolly stream of anything BN5. For my part I was mewrely suggesting that there are patently a great deal of social problems. I don't want to hug a hoodie, but i do want crime to reduce.

I think i was getting at the point that curing addiction is a good route to that, and if you have ?30k to spend in a year, then we can either spend it sending one oik to prison (actually including court costs, transportation etc etc it's alot more than that) for a year keeping him off the street, or we can fund one outreach/social worker and some facilities that may get five people off their addiction or off the street with it's consequent petty crime and/or violence that year.



simples economy stupid, to quote a half clinton half meerkat.

I think durgs (ALL drugs) should be legalised.


The demand will never be supressed and the current legal situation means that this demand can only be satisfied by those who are ready to disrespect the law and there's plenty of them. This market is simply left to criminals or those who are ready to become criminals.

I almost agree, but feel that from personal experience I would have indulged a bit more than I did - which would not have been a good thing - if i could have just gone down the shop for some Coke for example. Not fear of the law just that shitty waiting around fot 'the man' was always a big deterrent for me......I could never be arsed to chaise drugs(see what I did there) but if they were there I tended to partake.....

Libertarianism would make all drugs legal. Then it becomes a matter of public health policy not a criminal matter, with campaigns to warn of the medical dangers of drug use. Legalisation and taxation would change the dynamics of the trade.


Poppy farming in Afghanistan would become a legal enterprise, as would cocaine production in Columbia and other drug producing centres. This would free up a lot of resources to concentrate on more worthwhile causes such as eradicating hunger and poverty.


Of course it wouldn't be that simple but that should be the point to aim at.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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