Syringe Exchange/Methadone Services: Crystal Palace Rd

[ednerd]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> ednerd the whiter than white character who has

> never had any addiciton issues, should perhaps

> consider the future. Any current or potential

> offspring who may well be inclined to follow a

> certain path in later years, are they condemned to

> the same narrow minded attitude? I hope not. If

> the new service isnt offered in ED, where else

> will it go?

Louisa - perhaps they could use your living room, or perhaps set up a marquee in your backyard?

I guess you dont care as long as it

> doesnt damage your "decent residential area".

Correct.

[Louisa]

You have Daily Mail written all over you ednerd.

[ednerd]

Incorrect, my friend. It's the FT for me. (That's the pinky orange one).

Now get off this thread and go and help a junkie!

[Louisa]

Firstly, i'm not your friend, let's set the record straight here. Secondly, I was making a point about your hypocritical views not the colour of your newspaper.

I seriously hope your family are hit with addiciton one day, then maybe you will be forced to get off your high horse and pay attention. You are selfish if you think it's ok to have it elsewhere but not on your doorstep. You made a very bizarre link between justification for child abusers wife beaters and drug addiction earlier. How would you feel if a paedophile was moved out of ED and put in a community elsewhere where they reoffended? People like yourself do not fix the problem, you just move it around. You are more offensive than the offenders!

[ednerd]

Difficult to fully rebut that one, Louisa, as so many jumbled, slightly illogical points to tackle simultaneously. Notwithstanding, it does seem reasonable to suggest that I would prefer that the less pleasant elements of society (paedophiles, drug addicts etc), were not a dominant theme during my child's formative years. For the avoidance of doubt, yes, the point I am making is that I would prefer that such elements were not in ED at all. If that viewpoint limits me to a life of friendship with Daily Mail readers, so be it.

And by the way, how very kind and enlightened of you to wish addiction upon one of my family in order to help you to make your point.

[AllforNun]

EdBird - not sure if you are trying to impress the girls with your wide boy chatter but this is 2007 not the 80's - loads of money has been and gone. Why an earth you are wanging on about a "credible argument about enhancing lives of the majority of ED residents" ? nothing to do with it whatsoever, it's a facility for people, with a heroin addiction, who may actually live in ED. Now jog on back to Clapham.

[Louisa]

Allfornun - the problem is that ednerd cant afford to live in Clapham, he/she is a wannabe Claphamite i'm afraid. They obviously cant handle being forced to live so close to Peckham and Camberwell, and feel they need to isolate ED as much as possible so that the real world does not get in. Lost cause i'm afraid.

[ednerd]

AllforNun, ignoring your 'wide boy chatter' about loads-a-money etc, as, a) don't fully understand the references(too young and wasn't in the UK during period you mention), and b) they are irrelevant, have you any thoughts on the location of the facility, its appropriateness and the implications for local residents? Or was your only intention to state the obvious: "that it's a facility for people, with a heroin addiction, who may actually live in ED"?

[Louisa]

> ... its appropriateness and the

> implications for local residents?

Who and what decides whether something is appropriate or not for a particular area?

What are the implications for residents? Ever thought of looking at other areas in and around the UK which have these drop-in centres local to them?

[ednerd]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> > ... its appropriateness and the

> > implications for local residents?

>

>

> Who and what decides whether something is

> appropriate or not for a particular area?

Usually, it is local government, subject (one hopes) to consultation with various stakeholders, including local residents.

>

> What are the implications for residents? Ever

> thought of looking at other areas in and around

> the UK which have these drop-in centres local to

> them?

Yes, if you would re-read the first few posts on this thread, there seems to be some indication that in other areas the presence of such centres has led to increased crime and anti-social behaviour in the surrounding area, which does seem entirely plausible.

[AllforNun]

Oh Enid, would you please stop trying to re-inforce your own identity with comments like "to young" and "hey I have been abroad". I am presuming when you say abroad you mean not the Far East; lots of heroin and prostitution apparently. So I think you went somewhere really clean and safe...mmmm....let me think.......it wasn't Dulwich Village was it? you do know that it is not actually abroad?

Anyway I am glad that you can finally see that the main point is obvious; that it's a facility for people, with a heroin addiction, who may actually live in ED.

As for your comments about increased crime, and following on your line of thinking or unthinking, are you actually suggestion that we find areas where anti-social behaviour and crime are rife and situate these places there? ....did the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteinot party try that in Berlin during the II World War. Yes I think they did, they put all the people that they did not agree with in one area, renamed it the "Ghetto" and, well the rest is history.

Anyway apologies for jog on......just blog on....it's all good debate

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Ednerd - A point I would like you to consider - if the DMC was only offering this service to it's own registered patients who have an addiction problem and who are presumably ED residents, would you still oppose it?

What about all the other GP's maybe they should be obliged to offer addiction treatment to their registered patients instead of forcing this ghettoisation of addiction services?

You are lucky not to have had to deal with addiction, but my mother is an alcoholic, and so where both of my brothers (all much more officially respectable than me by the way). Many people I know suffer from depression and take up some form of addictive behaviour as a result. Sometimes as a diversionary tactic, or just to numb whatever emotional pain they are feeling.

I am glad you seem to have some sympathy for victims of abuse, maybe you should extend that to the victims of abuse who end up as alcoholics/drug addicts/prostitutes etc as many of them do.

[Keef]

This seems to be a debate that will not end in complete agreement... I saw Ednerds earlier post and to be honest thought what a nasty selfish git. That post was followed however by Tillie, who I am a huge fan of, agreeing whole heartedly (if that is a fair interpretation of "here here").

Ednerd, I find the way you've put your arguements across to be a bit offensive to be honest, and this makes me less inclined to sympathise with them.

I also don't like the way everyone has shot Louisa's arguements down. Her arguement on here was not out of order, it was not unreasonable, it was her opinion, and it mirrored those already shown by several people on this thread!

What makes people think that Dulwich is such a special area that it shouldn't provide a service like this, and why would other areas be more appropriate? Now, next to a nursery, I can see the issues there, but when the kids are there, it will be staffed, and they will be at no further risk than they would be anyway... Being a needle user doesn't make you a child snatcher!

[mockney piers]

> Being a needle user doesn't make you a child snatcher

Perhaps not, but I can understand concerned residents. It does make you more likely to be sociopathic, a thief, a bit smelly or a combination of the above, or of course none of the above.

Prior to criminalisation heroin users tended to be a pretty decent living bunch who could get their drug of choice on prescription, so there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being a heroin addict, more of a demographic issue, ie these days your addiction is likely to have arisen out of poverty, a history of abuse etc.

These people need society's help to recover, or at least not drop dead in the meantime. Next door to a nursery though? I dunno, would it be so difficult to run it out of the one on the high st?

As for nimbyists, they're members of society too you know, I just wish they wouldn't do it around here.

[Keef]

LOL

Is the nursery the biggest issue here, would people not be bothered if it was somewhere else in the area?

I asked a question earlier about whether people were just against this full stop, or if they would be okay with it in certain circumstances... I got no reply.

[fractionater]

Stick it in Peckham!.....we don't want no rif-raff round 'ere!

[Ganapati]

I think it could be placed elsewhere besides the nursery. And I do think someone made the point a while back that you wouldn't place a nursery next to a pub, so why the needle exchange. Anyway, isn't this really about the DMC not consulting with residents? And can we just agree on one thing that heroin use is not a good idea? Please don't tell me that people have a right to poison their bodies, fine, technically yes, but I think when we start saying there is "nothing intrinsically wrong about being a heroin user" we start crossing into "enabling"--to use therapy-speak. As Chav pointed out people often turn to it because of underlying mental issues, depression problems etc. There is obviously something wrong if you have to turn to a drug, known for its powerfully addictive, destructive effect to ease the burdens of your life.

[Keef]

Er, said nursery is a mere few doors away from a pub.

[nutty]

Most posts seem to me to be missing the point entirely imho.

Isn't the issue that we'd all rather this was openly discussed amongst residents and their opinions sought and listened to by the powers that be? Whether it should or should not happen is a blunt debate here, but should be able to be had with the people behind the proposal and those that decide on it's appropriateness to the area.

Then all this discussion about pros and cons can be had in an informative environment where responses are backed by fact (hopefully) and where comments from residents will make a difference (again hopefully).

I think this is the central point of the petition; that a discussion should be had, not necessarily that the proposal be blocked. Tell me if I'm wrong?

[bawdy-nan]

Personally I feel ambivalent about this whole thing.

I don't necessarily think that opening such a facility is a bad thing. I recognise that addicts are part of the community and deserve respect, consideration and services in the same as way as do all humans.

As I've said before I have a child at the nursery. I am also a trustee of the nursery but am representing only my personal views here.

Personally I do not have tremendous concerns about the idea but I would feel much more comfortable about it if I could be satisfied as to the motivation for setting up such a facility. As I understand it the needle exchange and methadone business will be required as a condition for allowing a pharmacy on site, its not that having a needle exchange and methadone consumption clinic is the main motivation. In many ways I'd feel more comfortable about the whole situation if it were the primary driver. I'd feel as though the people who want to set it up have a real interest, expertise and concern in serving the needs of people affected by drug-addiction.

It seems to me that this is not part of a carefully though through PCT plan rather the result of "market forces". There's an opportunity to develop income streams for the practice by opening a pharmacy on site , there's no identified need for an additional pharmacy in the area so they have to go for the exemptions (100 hours plus drugs services) to get it through. If there is a need for such drugs services in the area (in addition to the pharmacy on Forest Hill Road which does provide more similar services) then I feel that, of course, it should be provided.

If I were starting from scratch and first principles I probably wouldn't place it at Dulwich Medical Centre. Yes, because its a residential area and yes because its next to a nursery and an after-school club amongst other things. I don't feel NIMBYish about it because I wouldn't mind it being nearer my own back-yard (I'm up the top end of Barry Road / LL )

This topic is provoking strong opinions, of course. Many people have had experience of drugs and drug users and this experience has made some people more sympathetic and some people less sympathetic. Heroin addiction is an emotive topic. It does ruin lives and is frequently associated with crime and pretty foul behaviour. If it were possible to sustain a heroin addiction quite comfortably and function as a member of society then there'd be less of a problem. If it were easy to control and dip in and out of then it wouldn't provoke fear. I know, of course, that some heroin addicts are able to serve an addiction and be "useful" members of society but there aren't so many instances of this. I can absolutely understand why people who live nearby and whose children attend the nursery and after-school club are concerned about this, even if, on balance, I don't feel those concerns so powerfully myself.

As people have pointed out drug use is often linked with mental illness and is treated with a similar distaste. People are frightened by it and many, many people have had brushes with it - whether through direct personal experience or through friends and family. It would be great if GP's were able to provide decent mental health and addiction services as part of their everyday service but they don't. This facility isn't going to be the one to change that.

It seems to me wrong to try and address all the bigger issues around drug use and addiction services in this case. Is it really what this is about or is it about a "local business" trying to make a buck?

[Ko]

Keef Wrote:

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

> What makes people think that Dulwich is such a

> special area that it shouldn't provide a service

> like this, and why would other areas be more

> appropriate?

I don't think Duwlich is a special area. For argument's sake, say the DMC was picked up and put in the middle of a trouble-strife council estate in Peckham.

(BTW, I'm using Peckham as someone has suggested this above as somewhere EDers might want to push the problem to. Also I'm not saying that council estates are all dreadful places, because there are plenty which provide decent housing, a safe environment and a good community.).

Would the location of this council estate make it a better proposal? No. Because:

(1) The PCT has not shown that there is a need, for example, for more needle exchange/methadone services. If the PCT are determined to spend a set proportion of money on services for substance misuse, how about they look at what is actually needed by that group of people (including non-methadone users). What about if there is a need, for example, for more counselling services for them? Even if the location for that has to be provided on Crystal Palace Rd or in the middle of the fictional council estate.

It our taxes (including, as CWALD says, the taxes of what seem like so called 'respectable' people, who are actually addicts). The addicts will also have probably paid taxes at some point in their life and even if they haven't, they are still entitled to support from society beacuse they are ill. Why not spend the money on services needed, rather than another daft PCT plan which they so far haven't shown any substance/need for.

(2) The PCT should do a risk assessment and put into place some measures to minimise any potential risks, whether the services are on Crystal Palace Rd or on the fictional council estate.

What about if drug pushers are attracted to the area and that in turn attracts more drug users and it gets to the point where there is trouble? I'm not saying that WILL happen, but how do we know it won't happen - because no risk assessment has been done. Why not do a risk assessment beforehand and put some measures in place, like some firm commitments about better lighting, more street clean ups etc. The PCT has not done this, so I am opposing the application as it stands, until I can see an application where a sensible and responsible approach has been taken.

Addicts are also entitled to see that money spent on them is spent on what actual services they need. They also have the right to go somewhere safe which will not be potentially be so targeted by potential drug pushers/drug addicts that it leads to trouble.

(3) The PCT is supposed to be an accountable body. Last week, it was discovered that the PCT has received an application and it had not consulted relevant interested parties and there were only 4 working days left to put together any sort of response and the PCT were unwilling to provide full information.

Under law, consultation means taking into account all relevant factors, but then it is subsequently up to the decision maker to decide what weight to attach to those relevant factors. But the decision maker can't just decide not to consult without explaining their reasoning. The PCT has to comply with the principles of Adminsitrative Law, or it is behaving illegally.

Last week, the PCT decided to do what it likes, regardless of the right procedures and requirements and without employing some common sense. So I will oppose that application until they start taking a reasonable and responsible approach. At the moment they are behaving like a bunch of cowboys, which is not what I pay my taxes for.

That's my view and everyone is entitled to their view.

[Ko]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

>As I understand it the needle exchange and methadone business will be required as a condition for allowing a pharmacy on >site, its not that having a needle exchange and methadone consumption clinic is the main motivation. In many ways I'd feel

> more comfortable about the whole situation if it

> were the primary driver. I'd feel as though the

> people who want to set it up have a real interest,

> expertise and concern in serving the needs of

> people affected by drug-addiction.

>

I agree with quite a few points Bawdy-Nan says, especially this one.

[Ko]

nutty Wrote:

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

> Most posts seem to me to be missing the point

> entirely imho.

>

> Isn't the issue that we'd all rather this was

> openly discussed amongst residents and their

> opinions sought and listened to by the powers that

> be? Whether it should or should not happen is a

> blunt debate here, but should be able to be had

> with the people behind the proposal and those that

> decide on it's appropriateness to the area.

>

> Then all this discussion about pros and cons can

> be had in an informative environment where

> responses are backed by fact (hopefully) and where

> comments from residents will make a difference

> (again hopefully).

>

> I think this is the central point of the petition;

> that a discussion should be had, not necessarily

> that the proposal be blocked. Tell me if I'm

> wrong?

Hurrah Nutty!! Give the boy a gold star! (tu):)) (he even gets two smiley symbols)

I am blocking the current proposal as it stands because the whole package offered is preposterous (e.g. no consultation, no full information provided, no risk assessment, no firm commitments on prevantative measures). If people had full confidence in the PCT, they might feel differently.

Why is everyone attacking each other when its the PCT who's most at fault? Yes some people might have dodgy views, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the PCT is currently behaving in one of the most dodgy ways. (I know the last sentence is not the best English!)

[Ganapati]

Oh come on Keef! It's not right next door is it. Anyway, as Bawdy Nan and Ko so wisely pointed out it's about the DMC offering a service that was an add-on rather than one they thought through.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Fractionater said: "Stick it in Peckham!.....we don't want no rif-raff round 'ere!"

For ?25K/annum they can use my front garden.