Letter: Prescribing GPs can help drug-addicted patients as much as specialists
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As one of the 'state licensed drug dealers' recommended by Commander John Grieve last week, I feel politicians and public are insufficiently aware of just how successful this rationing system was until 1971 and what has happened to it since then. By that time, the advent of cheap transatlantic travel had provided an escape for refugees from the American prohibition to a tolerant haven in England. To keep America happy yet preserve the success of a legally available drug ration, the UK responded by restricting the number of doctors 'licensed' to carry out this explicitly 'inn-keeping' role.
Unfortunately, most of the restricted number of doctors (mainly psychiatrists licensed by the Home Office) became more interested in getting addicts off their drugs than in operating the drug ration and maintaining healthy addicts. The doctors increasingly refused to prescribe, producing a 'medical' prohibition and driving the addicts to the gangsters. As addicts took to the black market, their health plummeted and crime rates soared.
Where prescribing is continued it is successful, but the benefits almost wholly accrue to the Home Office and the costs are almost wholly borne by the Department of Health. (However, the costs to the DoH would almost vanish if addicts paid the modest cost of their pure, NHS- supplied, free drugs.)
The conflicting inter-departmental messages lead to the understandable puzzlement of politicians and public.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN MARKS
Consultant Psychiatrist
Widnes, Merseyside
15 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments