Should drug addicts be paid to use birth control?

Do the old trick of turning it around; "Is it a good idea for drug adicts to have children?" Almost certainly not, so I can't see why this approach is even considered controversial?

It's not sterilisation, it's not permanent, so advicts would not be being encouraged or enduced to make permanent decisions whilst in a potentially vulnerable state. Sounds like an acceptable compromise to the sterilisation idea.

Why pay them? They get enough from us in the form of benefits. Enforced sterilisation is the answer to preventing more generations of scrounging, offensive and criminal addicts.

Where do you stop? it will be people who drink next,then people who are poor why do these people think they have the right to judge who will be a good parent.

Good idea if addicts want this and a charity is paying i see nothing wrong this will get plenty of comments from the haves on here yet again they will resort to slagging of those in society that need help,
when help is available to everone with an addiction or problems we might live in a decent society?

Children born of addicts unable to go clean are mostly doomed to a life of misery anyway - worse for those whose parents became addicts after they were born. Something needs to be done to get these people out of the gene pool anyway.

I can't decide if #2 Graham is being ironic. Reading some of the people who post on here, probably not.
I don't know enough on the subject to offer a particularly cogent argument, but I do know that anything which preys on the vulnerable is not a good idea.
And whatever Graham's views, drug addicts really do come into that category.

Surely there is no way to enforce that these people are using the contraception?

What's to stop them taking the moment and not the pill?

Absolutely no way. Why should we pay them for not having children, when we also pay them through benefits for having children. Money for nothing!

This can only be good for the poor unborn kid in all of this!!! Poor little blighter will be off to a great start in life!!

No they should not be paid... persistent offenders should simply be ordered, or face jail. Have we forgotten that what they are doing is illegal?

So a US charity is offering money here to drug addicts not to have children.

Everything fine and dandy in the US, is it?

No-one in the US is using crystal meth? Coke? Crack? Smack?

Why not make the world a better place so that people don't reach for drug based nihilistic outcomes and leave any eugenic aspirations in the dustbin of history.

I had real problems with this charity when it was sterilisation, but this sounds like a much better idea.

It's not the pill, by the way, it's the coil or the injection, so they can't "just forget to take it".

Try reading an article before you comment on it, ndiddy.

I do so enjoy the knowledge that you need a license and an extensive education to learn how to drive a car, esstentially an inert one tonne hunk of plastic and aluminium, but anyone from Harry Heroine to Clara Cocaine can have a child because it's some biological right. I think in our current society the raising of a child should certainly be a priveledge.

Permanent steralisation!

Why waste time and money on them

why dont the tea party the born agains, uncle sam and the old glory, keep their big intrusive noses out of british affairs!look after their own,they have plenty,with out interfering over here.the gaul of that bloody nation.we have been taking care of business in these isles for aeons not two minuets,they really get off on spreading the yankee dollar,"i've got much more money than you"attitude.the brits are not like americans.we don't all worship at the altar of mammom.we old our dignity and morals higher than that,so get a life and sod off!!

Who exactly authorised a "US charity" to come to the UK and start operating in this way?

It is for the UK Government to deal with this problem, as it is for the UK Government to deal with all the other problems in the UK - that is why we have Governments.

I really do wish this country, the UK, could break itself of this apparent obsession with not only aping everything done in the US but now even encouraging them to bring their ideas and personnel over here. Never has the old phrase "Yanks go home" been more appropriate. You look after your country, we'll look after ours, thank you, good night, there's a plane leaving for the US shortly.

This is really wierd behaviour by Project Prevention. Surely these meddling Americans could find enough addicts to "save" in their own country? Addicts are actually very vulnerable people who are easily seduced by a few pounds and the fix that will buy. Just leave them alone and most of them will eventually grow out of their habit.

. At 11:22am on 08 Mar 2011, frankiecrisp wrote:
"Where do you stop? it will be people who drink next,then people who are poor. . ."

And how about people who are addicted to power? and bonuses? And how about people who are addicted to paying addicts not to have children? Wouldn't that be an improvement.

Just a thought: wasn't this a story from about two months ago? Nothing else worth talking about today, police pay cuts for example?

Define drugs and addiction properly and birth control would certainly eliminate the human race pretty darned quick. Some creatures may even applaud in their own sweet way.

we shoudl not pay a penny to drug addicts...they chose to be one. so in my harsh view. Like social housing why on earth cant people take responsability for their own lives, if i dont pay my mortgage i dont have a roof over my head, we give too much out to people who expect to be looked after. we are all in life as individuals and should take responsability for our own actions. its that simple.

Pay for the treatment direct - but no cash to drug addicts. Many people on drugs may realise that they have enough problems without adding to them by having children, and a small bit of help in that direction might be of assistance.

I realise not all abuse is related to drugs, but in few years we have seen numerous babies and toddlers horribly abused and/or killed, and many of these seem to have been drug/alcohol-related incidents. It is the children we need to think about.

No drug addict is in a state of mind to make a rational judgement. Instead, I would hand a sentence of life without parole to anyone dealing in any illegal drug. Quite simple really. The message must unambiguous.

Fine by me. I won't be donating to the charity, but and as long as these funds never come from the taxpayers pocket they can do what they like.

It sounds like a good idea for those who choose it, anything that stops addicts having children while they are dealing with their addiction can't be bad idea.

The fact they are not required to take a pill everyday or remember to use condoms should make it easier and more reliable.

Didnt you do this topic before? It rings a bell

All addicts, whether drugs, booze, gambling, sex(?) etc have severe mental problems that must be dealt with.

These addicts are in no fit state to bring up children. Certainly, they should be encouraged to be treated for their addiction and, until such time as the addiction is controlled and the underlying causes of the addiction addressed, birth control should be actively encouraged.

Full marks to Project Prevention to standing up to the pc brigade with a common sense approach.

YES great idea

I do not see what the problem is.
A charity is paying addicts to think about contraception and are explaining to addicts that having children is not in the best interests of society, themselves or any newborn in their current condition.
It is contraception rather than sterilisation so it is not permanent.

Micheal Lloyd's comments are pathetic.
How about we as a society try to deal with issues ourselves without relying on the government to control and meddle in everything that we do.
Giving the fact that many if not most charities operate in foreign countries why the rant against the US?

20. At 12:01pm on 08 Mar 2011, surfingkenny wrote:
we shoudl not pay a penny to drug addicts...they chose to be one. so in my harsh view. Like social housing why on earth cant people take responsability for their own lives, if i dont pay my mortgage i dont have a roof over my head, we give too much out to people who expect to be looked after. we are all in life as individuals and should take responsability for our own actions. its that simple.


-------------------------
At thousand times this. Give scroungers an inch, and they'll take a yard - we seem to give them everything else free, why not this as well i suppose.

No problems with this, apart from why should they get paid?

Why would a US charity come to the UK and give £200 to each drug addict it sterilises?
Should "U-turn" Dave or "Trigger" Clegg decide its a good idea then it wont be too long before 'Project Prevention' decides they can no longer afford a free handout and starts charging the NHS accordingly.

I certainly would rather accept the charity and the temporary compromise offered by Project Prevention, than adhere to Graham's philistine, almost comically childish view that anyone who gets addicted to something is somehow subhuman and should be castrated. Extreme right-wing views, and extreme left-wing views for that matter, really are the scourge of debates on here as nothing ever ends up actually getting discussed.

This is a bit pathetic to be honest. Why not devote the time and energy to helping people fix the problems in their lives that lead to a dependance on drugs to cope with the world?

They're human beings and deserve a normal life. If people weren't so lazy and selfish they'd be helping these people, and then they can have families without their children being at risk.

They should be paying them to get sterilised and do the same too the men!

Ha! The right wing are the biggest scroungers. They want the benefits of living in society without contributing to anyone else's wellbeing. They project their own failings onto people they don't know and even when the real evidence points to the disadvantaged NOT being "scroungers". Pathetic.

19. At 12:00pm on 08 Mar 2011, Aneeta Trikk wrote:Define drugs and addiction properly and birth control would certainly eliminate the human race pretty darned quick. Some creatures may even applaud in their own sweet way.

....................................................................
Speak for yourself. Wouldn't society be a much better place if we all realised that bringing a child into the world is a huge resposibilty. As a parent you are responsible for providing a stable loving environment, where a child can thrive and become a good citizen. Unfortunately, most of the children born to addicts are born into an unstable situation, where responsibility, and, in some cases love, are sadly mssing. The parent or parents expect the state to take responsibility.
We have in this country, fallen prey to the masses that believe the state is responsible for them. There are no boundaries anymore, no respect and our feral society just keeps expanding.
I'm absolutely behind any charity that is trying to prevent children being born into a life where the uphill battle begins immediately. Having children is a privilige not a biological right.

I had a nice considered comment worked out for this that appeared to be rationale. But on due consideration I've realised that as long as I don't have to pay for it I really don't give a stuff. That's appalling isn't it? Am I a victim of the 'had enough and don't care anymore' society that we seem to live in.

Sterlization for both sexes is the way forward. The massive costs of the state having to deal with the damaged offspring of these people needs to be the first priority.

20. At 12:01pm on 08 Mar 2011, surfingkenny wrote:
we shoudl not pay a penny to drug addicts...they chose to be one. so in my harsh view. Like social housing why on earth cant people take responsability for their own lives, if i dont pay my mortgage i dont have a roof over my head, we give too much out to people who expect to be looked after. we are all in life as individuals and should take responsability for our own actions. its that simple.

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

People's lives are not entirely under their control and they can face problems they simply cannot fix by themselves. Responsibility has nothing to do with that.

People do not CHOOSE to become addicted to drugs either. Do you even understand what an addiction is? You've either had a very sheltered life or you've been very lucky.

If you really believe in every man for himself, why don't you get out of the country and live in the jungle? Or are you enjoying sponging off our public services and roads too much?

It's amazing how you must have raised yourself in the wild, taught yourself to read and right, educated yourself, fought off legions of muggers, drank dirty water, and yet you're still here to tell other people they don't deserve help because then you have to go without more useless luxuries. You should really write that down sometime - I bet it's a fascinating tale.

I believe that all addicts that are arrested or hospitalised should be held in compulsory residential treatment programs until 'cured'. I don't mean a dungeon in the ground with no windows. I mean a genuine secure treatment facility. If they are having a child it is the duty of society to defend that unborn child who had no choice in the matter. If they are arrested for a genuine offence such as theft then it is the duty of society to defend itself against the actions of addicts. Fair enough it will be expensive but nowhere near as expensive as keeping the status quo.

I find this whole thread extremely offensive. And the so-called 'charity' doing this. They are punishing potential children for having parents who are drug addicts, not the addicts themselves.
There are many people whose parents were drug addicts and yet who had a very fulfilling life - who are we to stop these people from being born? Someone mentioned eugenics and that's exactly what this is! Regarding people born in less priveleged environments as less worthy of life than people born in priveleged environments.
Also, if we force conraception upon drug addicts, why not upon smokers and drinkers, and unemployed people. The list really does go on...

In response to comments 15 and 16 maybe if our own government did do more we wouldn't have to rely on outside charities, I'm not saying it is ideal but at least it is meant to be a positive idea compared to negative comments that don't really help at all. Anyway we are quite good at sticking our noses in other country's business.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Are the Field trails on new types of birth control drugs? but why addicts'??? would that be for the side effects? Many drug companys pay people to take new drugs and treatments in the u.k. tests' done on them are well payed, So if Drug addicts are payed not to have children whats the probelm? Many drug users' are not well enough, to look after children.

'Got any spare change mate'
I think I'll become a drug addict, it appears to pay off.

Pay the irresponsible to be responsible.....and if by magic they became responsible with the help of £200 stuffed in their pocket....Nice fairly tale isn't it.

You counldn't make this up if you tried could you.

This has been tried before and it slippery sloped then to the "ultimate solution", the trick seems to be where to draw the line, why stop with drug addicts?

Google is your friend here just search for "eugenics" or "Buck v Bell".

Why can't we comment on police reductions - this is old news and your choice of comments we can comment on are a disgrace.

AND if people kept there own children we would be far better off!

We should stop treating drug addicts and people with aids - after all we are all in this together!

At 11:14am on 08 Mar 2011, Graham wrote:
Why pay them? They get enough from us in the form of benefits. Enforced sterilisation is the answer to preventing more generations of scrounging, offensive and criminal addicts.

==============================

I seem to recall someone else saying sterilisation should be enforced on people he didn't like. Short fellow, Austrian I think. Had a really daft moustache. Shouted a lot. Y'know the one.

Just thought it worth reminding the foaming-at-the-mouth right whingers (sic deliberate) posting on here demanding sterilization for all addicts that most drug addicts overcome their addiction eventually.

What do we as a society do about drug addiction ? We mostly tut, tut because we do not understand what it is all about and because we don't or won't look seriously at it, Our government legislates to control the uncontrollable and by doing so turns an addict into a criminal providing a platform for endless profits to the real criminals, the importers and dealers. Neighbourhoods are tainted by the trade, individuals take daily risks acquiring substances of unknown origin or composition. To fund this trade, addicts work, steal or sell themselves and risk arrest and persecution at every turn. Individuals and their families lives are ruined, children are born into a mire of addiction and deprivation. A drug addict is a human being, they think, have emotions, wants and needs just like anyone, it is just that the addiction drives their thoughts and actions in a direction that is socially subversive. We as a nation do not won't to know, but as a society we all live with the consequences. If the government will not act with true social responsibility, others will take up the challenge, then things may start to change for the better. This charity is acting in the best interest of the addict and the unborn child.

in all honesty whats the cheapest option for society? drug addicts who have children will invariably have health problems, so too will the child. throw in the inevitable mess afterwards, with social services involved and so on and there you have it. the cost for the british taxpayer is astronomical. i see no problem with this, morally or ethically

No castrate them !! who looks after the children the state or the kids get beaten or killed ; why doesnt someone do something about this rather than have meetings or discussions or we musn`t upset someone ; namby pamby state again , why not pay smokers , alcoholics , murderers , rapists and so on ; 0 if you live a good and healthy life you get taxed to the hilt !! is there a moral here somewhere ?

Well apparently it's "cool" to be greedy and thick these days. Maybe I should join the right wing after all, eh?

I just don't know what's wrong with you people. You think people can act rationally at all times? You think nobody ever has a legitimate problem that can impact their ability to think or cope?

Who the hell makes a rational decision to sabotage their own life??

You really think people are content to suffer in exhange for a few measly quid? That people don't have dreams and goals in life?

It looks like critical thinking isn't a common feature among the right.

Aren't there enough American drug addicts who need this help?

While I totally agree that drug dependant people do not make good parents who is say that the money paid won't go straight into their drug fund?

Drug use has become the single most destructive force in the world today. Strict measures, including life imprisonment should be used as a deterrent. Allowing both users and trafficers to carrying on scoring whilst in jail is sick. Solitary confinement and supervised outdoor exercise is the only way to ensure that prisons are drug free.

They may mean well but this charity is just wasting its time and money but I compliment them for at least trying to do something constructive.

I recently watched a documentary shot in a women's prison and was horrified to see new detainees being harassed by addicts for anything they might have smuggled in. Surely the answer to this is to keep the new prisoners well away from everyone until any drugs they may have are long gone. Drug packages are routinely thrown over the prison walls. We have well trained dog and handlers that could sweep the area each morning thus stopping them being picked up by cons. The women I saw blatently flouted their drug use in front of staff - there is no hope until the problem is treated much more seriously.

Junkies are irresponsible almost by definition.
It'll be society that picks up the tab for raising their kids in care homes. What about the life of the child what chance does the kid of a junkie have? Born an addict, no parental role model, most of the time your parent leaving you alone so they can go and steal or prostitute themselves to feed their habit.
I junkies are so weakend by drugs to take up this offer, I think its a good thing; they are so far gone they shouldn't be producing kids.

53. At 12:47pm on 08 Mar 2011, Ken B wrote:
No castrate them !! who looks after the children the state or the kids get beaten or killed ; why doesnt someone do something about this rather than have meetings or discussions or we musn`t upset someone ; namby pamby state again , why not pay smokers , alcoholics , murderers , rapists and so on ; 0 if you live a good and healthy life you get taxed to the hilt !! is there a moral here somewhere ?

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

Yes, the moral is stop reading the Daily Fail where everyone who ever has a problem is there because they've done it on purpose or must have deserved it for some reason. You should read about the just-world phenomenon.

Erm, has BBC been rumaging through a tip, because this is just recycled news from last year.

On 18 October 2010 the BBC broadcasted a program, Sterilising The Addicts, about the organization—a similar program, Addicts: No Children Allowed, was broadcast in Scotland by BBC Scotland and BBC held a discussion on its Have Your Say section of its website.


The organization has provoked controversy, partly from the way in which it promotes its activities, including allegedly targeting poor and minority neighborhoods for the placement of billboard advertising, and distributing flyers with slogans such as "DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit"

Its ridiculous, crack addicts are generally and factually predominantly in poor areas, with high numbers also in predominantly poor minority areas, so where should they advertise, outside Parliament or opposite Harrods.

Crack & drug addiction is a growing problem, the offspring of addicts in the main go on to comit crime & increase further social/economic unsustainable problems and add to already unsustainable costs and ultimately weaken the survivability of whole nations and social structures.

Thing is, what is worse, a drug addict with big unsustainable familys adding to national/world unsustainability, or religious people with big familys or even just rich people with big familys, or anyone with big familys.

At the end of the day, just as a pride of lions, or even rats can multiply beyond sustainability of their environment and eventually experience population collapse/devastation & even get totally wiped out, the human species is factually heading for the same. Hence in future, sterilization may become the "NORM" but as with so many historical evolutionary educational lessons of our species, we will first be made to endure and experience attrocious devastation & catastrophy BEFORE we ACT.

3 FACTUAL REALITYS I know of (out of many more I know)

1. A couple, split, both long time drug users, mainly long term HARMLESS cannabis, but led onto crack, charlie, EEs, speed, magic mushrooms, Ketamin. 2 children, one with spinabifida, both kids now grown and in 20s,. Dad lives with sponabifida son, buys son speed, ketamin, cannabis ees etc & have shared use, ON BENEFITS. The dad claims a BRAND NEW mobility car every 2 years, on behalf of his son. The other son, takes more or less the same & has FIVE children, children becoming more & more dropouts from education, poorly educated, poorly clothed, constant social problems and also HUGE benefits receipt.

2. Single man, with relationship which resulted in 2 children, boys. He's long term drug user, essentially and previously MAINLY HARMLESS CANNABIS, then speed, charlie, not realy or ever been into ees but well into crack and still heavy cannabis user, but mainly good green, not the cheap nasty rubbish, also drinks a lot. On benefits for most of life, the 2 kids visit regulary, around age 10 & 11, & also dropping out of school, playing truant, hence future, have a guess!!!!

3. Young woman, started on MAINLY HARMLESS CANNABIS & acquired taste for charlie & relationships have revolved around access to charlie. 24 years old/young, 5 kids, 5th one recently dropped/born, NEVER worked paid taxes, on benefits, likes material things, house is BETTER equiped than many hard tax paying workers. Older kids already poorly educated, poor home standards etc & mum still likes charlie whenever she can get it from her husband/ex who lives with her but not officially because the kids would be taken off her due to his physical abuse of her etc.


These are just THREE factual realitys, the COST is enourmous and unsustainable, the QUALITY of life for those kids is poor and will get WORSE as they get older and have to fend for themselves, but benefits systems are there to fall back on.

The cost of just these 3 family groups is FAR in EXCESS of £500,000 over 10 years.

IMAGINE, 3000, or 30,000 or 30,000, or 3 MILLION, now you might have some idea of the costs and problems and continually multiplied problems, not just to society as a whole, but to these BEAUTIFUL INNOCENT NEW BORN BABYS/CHILDREN who's lives are RUINED/DEVASTATED and as a result of NO-CHOICE of parents, who for the MOST, will SUFFER HUGE problems and disadvantage thoughout their lives and CREATE many many more NEW problems for others, including MANY victims of crime. These BEAUTIFUL babys are born to SUFFER.

The state just CANNOT keep up with continually multiplying numbers let alone with PRESENT numbers, the state CANNOT afford to turn this around, even if they chucked and extra £20 billion or £50 billion at it.

Hence, there is FACTUALLY NO moral reason to allow this continue, especially as the situation is gradually damaging/destroying the long term maintenance and sustainability of ordinary decent citizens.

Hence, like it or not, sterilization of a core group/number, is FACTUALLY the ONLY way that this problem can be factually reversed and funding become available to provide help to a much greater number to turn them and their lives around.

One thing, if you think cannabis is harmless, you are a MUPPET, a GUN is harmless, but put it in wrong hands & it becomes dangerous, NO LESS SO THAN CANNABIS.

Rant, end of!!!

2. At 11:14am on 08 Mar 2011, Graham wrote:
Why pay them? They get enough from us in the form of benefits. Enforced sterilisation is the answer to preventing more generations of scrounging, offensive and criminal addicts.

************

There's a difference between a right wing point of view and a Fascist point of view, and the comment above is the latter. The problem with demonising sections of the population is that it becomes a slippery slope whereby everyone must conform to the State's model of normality, and out the window goes freedom and democracy.

Fortunately, most rational people realise that in a democratic society you have to ensure all people have the same civil liberties, not just the people you like.

No they should be sterialised

wow!
we are nearly there! the state of this country to that of germany when Hitler took power is just getting more and more similar!
However with no "leader" where is this all going to lead? is the uk going to start cleansing itself? really wouldnt suprise me!


the FACT is the country is overcrowded to many immigrants+kids for benefits = the mess we are in now.

to many people not enough jobs, transport, space,houses and so forth
sterilising people is not the answer!

kicking people out is!
im sorry yes all immigrants have the same right to life as us but if we keep letting them all come in and stay were only going to make everything crappy for us too! (well its allready well underway)

we should be focusing on making peoples lives better not making money

Why are people being so vitriolic towards the charity? I think that they are doing wonderful work. It solves so many problems and saves the UK tax payer untold amounts of money over many years. By them paying the addicts a small amount to have the coils fitted, they reduce the strain on the tax payer by us NOT having to pay for an addicts medical care (and probably several unsuccessful rounds through rehab) during pregnancy then the inevitable cost of social workers watching over the child and probably the child being in the social care system until it is 16. Why are you cutting off your nose to spite your face?? Is it perhaps because instead of sitting there like moaning ineffectual paperweights, someone has actually done something about the problem, and do you perhaps have _more_ of a problem with it because it was an American Charity? How short sighted you are.

I think it's a good idea but I don't think £50 supermarket vouchers is much of an incentive worthy for an addict to bother with getting a contraceptive implant.

If the offer on the other hand was a FREE prescription for £50 (street value) of heroine/methadone, you would see your local GP surgery knee deep in lady junkies waiting to have their ovaries turned off.

55. At 12:51pm on 08 Mar 2011, thomas wrote:

I recently watched a documentary...


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

That sounds like a very liberal use of the term "documentary". Most documentaries these days are psuedo-documentaries that follow the same sensationalist garbage as the rest of the media. They're targeted at the people who want to watch programs that reinforce their pre-determined ideas so they can froth and rage at them, rather than being truly educational.

Ok, bugger this. I'm off to play Dwarf Fortress.

52. At 12:47pm on 08 Mar 2011, TheTreboethTerror wrote:
in all honesty whats the cheapest option for society? drug addicts who have children will invariably have health problems, so too will the child. throw in the inevitable mess afterwards, with social services involved and so on and there you have it. the cost for the british taxpayer is astronomical. i see no problem with this, morally or ethically


=------------

well i say that people with diseases that can be pass on genetically should be sterilised because there children will be a burden on poor of you.
I also say that people who are mentally disabled should not go to school and so forth just put in the gas chamber because they cost the taxpayers money.

while were at it lets just sterilize the whole of london which would be much better for the country as its full anyhow?

no not going to happen really is it? who are you to decide what people do with there own body?

you pay tax's?
so does most of the worlds population get overyourself!!

Shift says "Why not make the world a better place so that people don't reach for drug based nihilistic outcomes and leave any eugenic aspirations in the dustbin of history."

Most addicts are victims and Shift has by his/ her own ignorance, identified the problem. We are increasingly becoming a species that are victims to everything that we cannot control.

We all have the ability to take control for our own lives, and those who do not will blame society, the government, their neighbour, their parents.

At some point we all have a defining moment where we decide whether to live at the effect of our demons or inspite of them.

It is a shame that the ones who rise above them, in the main support the rest who don't.

But then that is human society at its best.

Reducing the potential to create even more human beings who wont be able to make that decision is only a good thing.

People should be assessed whether they are deemed suitable to have children. If not they should be sterilised. Why should society pick up the tab for scum who screw around? These kind of drugees and alchies are jsut a drain and no economic value to society.

No ! No ! No !

These people will only buy more drugs and then there will be more drugs on the streets. Better to offer them food coupons or have medical treatment for their habit. But no money.

If a person is known to be a drug addict why are they not being arrested, charged and placed behind bars? I thought possessing and taking drugs was illegal? Surely in prison they can go “cold turkey” and receive treatment to kick the habit.

58. At 12:56pm on 08 Mar 2011, MrWonderfulReality wrote:

Absolutely. This country is in such a mess, the population is spiralling out of control, respect, responsibility and decent moral standards are increasingly the exception, and not the norm. But, the do gooders put on their rose tinted spectacles and fail to look beyond the end of their own noses and so do our present government, it would seem.

68. At 1:05pm on 08 Mar 2011, MrSlumEmmnaLOP wrote:
People should be assessed whether they are deemed suitable to have children. If not they should be sterilised. Why should society pick up the tab for scum who screw around?

***********
Who decides suitable? Perhaps my version of 'scum who aren't suitable to have children' would be a hedge fund manager.

HYS is becoming very retro, in a 1930's Germany sort of way..

Yes,a good idea if the addicts themselves agree otherwise it will be just as those addicted to booze where proven implant treatment can stop the addiction to drink very quick;ly,its against their human rights!!!!!I dont think it unreasonable to expect that there is a price to pay for addiction which would stop another addict being born and then to become the responsibility of the tax payer.Addiction to drugs or drink is a terrible life to lead which alas doesnt last long and if an innocent child is saved from being born into a nightmare then every effort should be made to prevent this from happening regardless of the addiction.

Oh my. There are some strange comments here that remind me a lot of what Hitler had in mind.

"People should be assessed whether they are deemed suitable to have children. If not they should be sterilised."

Who sets the bar what is a suitable parent? People are individuals and as such have different ideas on parenting.

I'd rather we wouldn't spend money on IVF. Let nature decide who can have children and who can't but not some overzealous people who think that drug addicts are unable to change or kick the habit.

At 12:58pm on 08 Mar 2011, scotty1694 wrote:

================================================

I have to laugh at the irony of scotty1694 pointint out how the UK is getting similar in attitude to 1930s Germany then launches into a tirade straight out of that era about immigration!

The sad thing is he probably doesn't even realise it...

Thanks to the one raving liberal that is providing me with much fun today, i do find it amusing that the PC-brigade use more offensive language than anyone else to try and get their point across. Speaks volumes in itself.

Go spend a week in west london, and watch a full estate of coke snorting single mum's with the latest smart phone strapped to their head, in their nice comfy flat's provided for by our tax money ...... oh yeah, they happen to have a kid as well to facilitate their life style, but lets not have that little fact get in the way eh? It's the la-la liberal mentality that enables this behaviour, it needs to end. Might as well give them the free pill as well, eveyrthing elses to be on the state.

If this is how a charity sees fit to spend its money in pursuit of its stated cause, then it's up to them.

If addicts choose to accept the money, and the obligations accompanying it, that's up to them.

If the charity rattles a collecting tin under my nose... well, that's a choice that is up to me.

I see little wrong in providing effective birth control for a group of vulnerable women, who might not cope with motherhood particularly well.
I would not support a sterilization programme, which has the whiff of eugenics about it.

Yes Drug addicts should be sterilised until they can prove to be drug free.

Sadly many parents are drug addicts already have children. Those children should sadly be removed and put into care until the addict is clean. I know care is not a great solution but beiong exposed to such a damaging person is not the answer.

Yes its cruel but so is the parents selfish approach to drugs.

If you have children you have both a financial, social and moral responsiblity.

The woman behind this charity should be very careful in judging some people 'unfit'. Given that she's a very big person ('morbidly obese' to use the current parlance) there are more than a few people in positions of power who would happily relieve her of her civil rights, including reproductive rights. Despite apparently being an exemplary guardian who has done a great deal of good for those in her care, there is no chance that she would be allowed to foster or adopt a child under current UK guidelines lest she set them a 'bad example' and moreover would inevitably be labelled a bad or irresponsible mother were she to produce one by natural means.

FWIW I've long been a vocal opponent of discriminating against fat people and using lazy stereotypes about their alleged poor diets, poor health and nonconformist attitudes to justify removing their procreative choices, but as an example it serves to demonstrate how judgements about whether someone is 'suitable' to be a parent or not are largely driven by the dominant values and prejudices of those with power in society at any given time, and how any number of positive attributes can be outweighed by an inability to tick the right box.

I seem to recall a lot of that sort of thing went on in the 1930s, not to mention 'stolen generations' of the children of indigenous peoples whose colonial masters considered their value system superior to that of those they sought to 'civilise', and the ongoing fallout in terms of a legacy of human misery, fractured families and cultural destruction. It depresses me immensely that despite our claims to be more enlightened we appear to have learned nothing and indeed seem to be marching headlong, with widespread public support whipped up by tabloid misinformation, toward a new eugenics based on lifestyle moralism and the cult of the perfect parent.

, Newbunkle wrote:
Ok, bugger this. I'm off to play Dwarf Fortress.

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

Get a job and you may not notice all the fascists hiding under your bed.

Yikes! There are some truly terrifying people on this HYS. I get the feeling they would like to see the unemployed "scum" herded into gas chambers so they could lower their tax bill.

32. At 12:20pm on 08 Mar 2011, OB1 wrote:
I certainly would rather accept the charity and the temporary compromise offered by Project Prevention, than adhere to Graham's philistine, almost comically childish view that anyone who gets addicted to something is somehow subhuman and should be castrated. Extreme right-wing views, and extreme left-wing views for that matter, really are the scourge of debates on here as nothing ever ends up actually getting discussed.

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

We cannot afford to allow these people to breed. It is people like you that have a tragically childish approach to these, non-functional, non-productive failures. We spend money on addicts and their offspring that could be used to improve the lives of others that can contribute to society. We are in a recession and allowing these people to breed only allows their sub-standard genes to further infect the gene pool.

#32. At 12:20pm on 08 Mar 2011, OB1 wrote:
I certainly would rather accept the charity and the temporary compromise offered by Project Prevention, than adhere to Graham's philistine, almost comically childish view that anyone who gets addicted to something is somehow subhuman and should be castrated. Extreme right-wing views, and extreme left-wing views for that matter, really are the scourge of debates on here as nothing ever ends up actually getting discussed.

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

Spot on, OB1. It is not so much what a lot of posters say, it is the way they say it and the abusive language, that annoys me.

Unfortunately drug addicts by their nature are not going to change, never have done and never will do. Their only thought is their next fix and many resort to prostitution to earn the money to pay for it. They do not think of the fact that a child may result from their actions. Therefore, if this charity (and others that are already working with addicts in the UK) can offer these people birth control, then it has to be a good thing.

Taking drugs and being a parent are entirely incompatible.

The argument that we all have the right to be a parent only works if you realise what 'being a parent' means.

Abusing the tool that facilitates being a parent is not on - it produces damaged babies.

I would support enforced sterilisation for those people who's habitual actions prove them to be a risk to children. Being a danger to children means being a danger to everyone.

Why are all those in our society that do the right thing, get a job, pay taxes and into the health service, always paying for the losers in society? They don't have to be drunks or druggies, they just need to get a bit of back-bone and stop expecting everyone else to prop them up, There's plenty of more deserving causes for our hard earned money to be spent on.

Sadly many parents are drug addicts already have children.

==========================

Isn't that technically the only option, it's hard to be a parent and not have had children...

62. At 12:58pm on 08 Mar 2011, Kat wrote:

Why are people being so vitriolic towards the charity? I think that they are doing wonderful work. It solves so many problems and saves the UK tax payer untold amounts of money over many years.

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

Because some people are soo keen on human rights that they believe its a human right to kill a child through neglect and the nanny state should get off their back about it.

For anyone to have any sympathy for any drug addict clearly shows the problem will never be gotten rid of. The facts speak for themselves yet all governments still keep dishing out money to them in benefits and the rest. Drug addiction is self inflicted and it's created for various reasons. A youngster may take it, because the others he or she hangs round with are taking it. They take it whilst they are drunk in a club and it's offered to them etc. etc. Many, many scenarios in the life of how an addict became an addict. Put it this way, they weren't born addicts.

I'm all for encouraging the practical and sensible use of contraception, however I think that when specific groups of people (branded "undesirable", "not good parent material", call them what you will) are discouraged and even paid not to reproduce is sends out the wrong message and puts mankind on a very dangerous path that we have trodden all too often in the past.
Some of the comments I've read on this HYS offer a frightening insight into the minds of modern Britain.

Interesting idea. Certainly better than their original idea of forced sterilisation. I still can't make up my mind on this one. Of course no child should have to be born to addict parents but it does bring up the "where does it all end?" question. Do we start on alcoholics next, then fatties & smokers?
I disagree with them being paid cash, addicts are blinded by their addiction & will agree to anything if it gets them a fix, they haven't suddenly realised that they will be rubbish parents, they're simply after the cash. The Welsh assembly idea of supermarket vouchers is the better idea, though these would need to be excluded from purchasing alcohol.
I'm quite sure this will lead to me being labelled "looney left" or "bleeding heart" but I think the best solution would be to better educate these people as to why they, currently, will not make the best parents. Help them treat their addiction & try & get over it. Ask any grown up child of an addicted parent if they genuinely wish they'd never been born, I'd like to think many would prefer to have their chance at life. Some addicts may, in the future, be fantastic parents & we simply cannot shield every unborn from the abuse, hardship & difficulties it may suffer. Sterilising everyone you think (& who exactly decides this?) will be bad parents will not avoid another Fritzel.

Of course its a good idea. All drug addicts that rely on the State to supply theme with drugs while ''trying to give up ?'' should either be sterilized or fitted with devices that stop them being capable of having or producing children. There are far too many children already being looked after by the authorities who are born ''with the habit''.

PS I have an addiction its posting on message boards I pay for the pooter myself pay my own broadband I can get over my addiction and do every time I get banned........I don't cost anyone anything I pay my TV licence to read left wing driffle now run along and take an overdose!

BNP members have taken over this HYS.

At 12:47pm on 08 Mar 2011, Ken B wrote:
No castrate them !! who looks after the children the state or the kids get beaten or killed ; why doesnt someone do something about this rather than have meetings or discussions or we musn`t upset someone ; namby pamby state again , why not pay smokers , alcoholics , murderers , rapists and so on ; 0 if you live a good and healthy life you get taxed to the hilt !! is there a moral here somewhere ?

===================================

Yes, stop being brainwashed by the tabloids.

66. At 1:01pm on 08 Mar 2011, scotty1694 wrote:
52. At 12:47pm on 08 Mar 2011, TheTreboethTerror wrote:
in all honesty whats the cheapest option for society? drug addicts who have children will invariably have health problems, so too will the child. throw in the inevitable mess afterwards, with social services involved and so on and there you have it. the cost for the british taxpayer is astronomical. i see no problem with this, morally or ethically


=------------

well i say that people with diseases that can be pass on genetically should be sterilised because there children will be a burden on poor of you.
I also say that people who are mentally disabled should not go to school and so forth just put in the gas chamber because they cost the taxpayers money.

while were at it lets just sterilize the whole of london which would be much better for the country as its full anyhow?

no not going to happen really is it? who are you to decide what people do with there own body?

you pay tax's?
so does most of the worlds population get overyourself!!

-----------------------------
WOW, not often I agree with Scotty, but he's spot on with this one.
Maybe someone should answer his question, Should people with debilitating conditions that could be passed to their child also be stopped from breeding? How about the extremely physically disabled?

61. At 12:58pm on 08 Mar 2011, scotty1694 wrote:
wow!
we are nearly there! the state of this country to that of germany when Hitler took power is just getting more and more similar!
However with no "leader" where is this all going to lead? is the uk going to start cleansing itself? really wouldnt suprise me!


the FACT is the country is overcrowded to many immigrants+kids for benefits = the mess we are in now.

to many people not enough jobs, transport, space,houses and so forth
sterilising people is not the answer!

kicking people out is!
im sorry yes all immigrants have the same right to life as us but if we keep letting them all come in and stay were only going to make everything crappy for us too! (well its allready well underway)

we should be focusing on making peoples lives better not making money

================================

So mr expert, how do you suggest we make lives better.

Maybe you do not see any connection to the devastation in Germany, pre-fascist, to the factual outcome.

Maybe you do not connect starving people in Germany with the enevitable extremism.

Maybe you do not connect starving conditions in areas of the world where extremism grows by the day

Desperate people do desperate things, normally using/utilising whatever means at their disposal to achieve a better outcome.

At the end of the day, anyone with any minor brain functionality and a good sense of reasoning will understand that there are limits to sustainability and growth.

Fact is, when things deteriorate then those limits are not far off, futures/outcomes which we presently perceive to take years or whatever to reach before crunch time, instead that unsustainability is brought forward and imposed by any number of situations, be it economic damage/decline, destroyed crops etc from weather/climate.

As a nation we are factually facing a shortfall of £150 BILLION in money which is needed to sustain us at present levels, hence how you can suggest that money is not essential is just plain stupidity.

A significant problem is that we are sustaining and maintaining a HIGH number of totally useless people. Useless in ALL senses and definitions.

If we were to remove a large number of immigrants it just means that we would be left with a bigger imbalance of unsustainability because it would dispose of a huge number who FACTUALLY contribute to our national maintenance and survival and who also largely contribute to paying for the unsustainable element of "white" citizens who contribute NOTHING and cost the nation MUCH.

LIFE, is a business, if you do not produce profit of food, then you cannot sustain a family, if you do not produce enough for 10 people to survive, then 10 people CANNOT survive.

At present, drug addicts who are in constant use and waste of our declining resources etc are MORE of a burdon and THREAT to our nations survival than MOST immigrants are.

Should a long time drug user and non contributor to the system have the same rights and access to healthcare as those who do contribute, especially when there is less & less resources available.

Should drug users be allowed to multiply the damaging/destructive problems they force upon others.

Drug addiction is like a cancer, it spreads & multiplys and if it is not confronted and cut out it will just become even more uncontrolable, which it is already past that point, as NOTHING except sterilisation is factually provable to reverse the upward trend because breeding is the CENTRAL factor in proliferating drug use among users.

Just as in familys where doctors children more often become doctors, the same is of drug addicts.

Thing is, the longer all these problems carry on, the WORSE and more EXTREME the counter measures will be, as is a factual and evidential reality.

Give a choice, TOTALLY give up drugs, or give up your ability to pro-create.

At the moment, the choices available are not of a level/reality to persuade a sustainable number to give up drugs, & at the end of the day, as with even Afganistan & Pakistan, even the poorest will not give up the cycle of self destruction of their lives and their offsprings lives. Hence STOP the ROT & MISERY of yet more new generations & simply sterilise them if they do not conform to decency for themselves & children they bare.

94. At 1:54pm on 08 Mar 2011, uncivil wrote:
BNP members have taken over this HYS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
No, just hard working tax payers, fed up with the scroungers, yobs, drug addicts, terminal benefit claimers, illegal immigrants, do gooders, lefty la la's and people like you,who absurdly think, because we are morally responsible human beings, we must of course be BNP voters. Wake up and look around you.

Why is this controversial? Is it good to let addicts have children?

Just sterilise them and be done with it.