sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
This is what I cut from my post because it was too long and I have a weak connection.
http://www.johannhari.com/2006/09/15/the-only-proven-way-to-slash-homelessness-heroin-prescription
There's no one called John Halstead. The reference must be William Halsted surgeon and head of John Hopkins. Do the examples mean anything I don't know. But It's totally dishonest to say it's "proven" heroin prescription is the best way to reduce homelessness.
Does every doctor agree that supplying of heroin leads to "normal. happy lives"? The College of GPs gave evidence against the extension of heroin prescription, the current head Claire Gerada said it was likely to become a way of making addicts for life. The RCN is split down the middle.
From a capitalist view:
Methadone: cheap, heroin: slightly more expensive but much better than methadone, proper programmes of rehabilitation+detoxification+employment+housing for all: really expensive
It's overblown and exaggerated.
He mentions the same person - Erin O'Mara editor of Black Poppy magazine - in two separate columns two years apart basically recycling that good example magzine editor who uses heroin at the same time. But each time the name appears as Erin O'Hara - yes that's the same (only) person used as an example of the success of heroin prescription but the wrong surname.
http://www.johannhari.com/2004/03/06/the-best-treatment-for-addiction-free-heroin
Prostitution once brothels are legalised and regulated.
http://www.johannhari.com/2003/07/20/legalise-prostitution-now-
Brothels are legal in New Zealand, the Netherlands and Germany: you get two types of pimps one set run the licensed brothels (more expensive), another set control the unlicensed trade (cheaper). He knows this, I'm sure, but just doesn't mention it. It's just exaggeration.
None of this means I am against people being prescribed as much heroin as is needed or against repealing laws that criminalise soliciting.
It's Johann Hari's general dishonest approach that's the problem.
Another example: him trumpeting how correct it was to throw Galloway out of the Labour Party, should have been done sooner etc., even though he admits Tony Blair is guilty of the same crimes.
http://www.johannhari.com/2006/09/15/the-only-proven-way-to-slash-homelessness-heroin-prescription
Sixty percent of the homeless Londoners you toss a few pennies at are addicted to heroin after a childhood of being ignored, beaten or raped. The evidence shows the only way to lift them out of the chaos of scrambling for their next fix – the only way for them to settle away from the streets – is to provide it, safely and securely, in a doctor’s surgery. Heroin is not like, say, crack. Every doctor agrees that once a heroin addict is given a legal, safe supply, they will regulate their use and live normal, happy lives: William Wilberforce, John Halstead (the founder of the Harvard Medical School) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge were all highly-functional heroin-heads.
There's no one called John Halstead. The reference must be William Halsted surgeon and head of John Hopkins. Do the examples mean anything I don't know. But It's totally dishonest to say it's "proven" heroin prescription is the best way to reduce homelessness.
Does every doctor agree that supplying of heroin leads to "normal. happy lives"? The College of GPs gave evidence against the extension of heroin prescription, the current head Claire Gerada said it was likely to become a way of making addicts for life. The RCN is split down the middle.
From a capitalist view:
Methadone: cheap, heroin: slightly more expensive but much better than methadone, proper programmes of rehabilitation+detoxification+employment+housing for all: really expensive
It's overblown and exaggerated.
He mentions the same person - Erin O'Mara editor of Black Poppy magazine - in two separate columns two years apart basically recycling that good example magzine editor who uses heroin at the same time. But each time the name appears as Erin O'Hara - yes that's the same (only) person used as an example of the success of heroin prescription but the wrong surname.
http://www.johannhari.com/2004/03/06/the-best-treatment-for-addiction-free-heroin
Prostitution once brothels are legalised and regulated.
http://www.johannhari.com/2004/01/02/at-last-an-opportunity-to-legalise-prostitutionStripped of legal rights and driven underground, sex workers are turned into outlaws who cannot seek or expect protection from the police. In these circumstances, they get trapped in often abusive relationships with pimps because they have nobody else to turn to. Provide them with recourse to the law - in licensed brothels equipped with panic buttons, where working prostitutes can look out for each other and identify offenders - and the need for pimps disappears.
http://www.johannhari.com/2003/07/20/legalise-prostitution-now-
Brothels are legal in New Zealand, the Netherlands and Germany: you get two types of pimps one set run the licensed brothels (more expensive), another set control the unlicensed trade (cheaper). He knows this, I'm sure, but just doesn't mention it. It's just exaggeration.
None of this means I am against people being prescribed as much heroin as is needed or against repealing laws that criminalise soliciting.
It's Johann Hari's general dishonest approach that's the problem.
Another example: him trumpeting how correct it was to throw Galloway out of the Labour Party, should have been done sooner etc., even though he admits Tony Blair is guilty of the same crimes.
The truth is that, to all decent people, Galloway and his dwindling band of comrades were rotting in a political graveyard before any of these accusations emerged. We do not need allegations of financial crookedness; we already know that he is morally crooked. The evidence for his authoritarianism is clear (indeed, I had documented it at length in this column, and said that he should be expelled from the Labour Party long before the current scandal). He has said that he would describe himself as a Stalinist (death toll: 30 million) if it was not "making a rod for my own back". He describes the day the Soviet Union fell as "the worst day of my life". He supports the death penalty. He praised General Musharraf's coup in Pakistan, saying that "in poor third world countries like Pakistan, politics is too important to be left to petty squabbling politicians. Pakistan is always on the brink of breaking apart into its widely disparate components. Only the armed forces can really be counted on to hold such a country together ... Democracy is a means, not an end in itself." (I know Bush and Blair have also praised Musharraf; they too should be ashamed).