Yupp! 

It is actually a vaguely serious point.  I wrote a dissertation on it at college.  Demonisation and criminalisation of drug takers.   And how it relates to the substances themselves or their prohibition.

I think the simplistic image of a drug user as a down trodden no hoper - who should be sterilised, natch - is hopelessly dumb, tbh.

Half the founding fathers of the USA were caning it - though they might not be the best examples of responsible adults right enough. 

Couldn't agree with you more


There will always be generalisation by some though..is the nature of the beast unfortunately!

Unless you're talking about Catholic charities, there are contraceptive schemes for African countries and promotion of condom use to prevent HIV infection. There are also drugs to stop HIV being transmitted to unborn babies born to HIV+ mothers.

How about we stop wasting money fighting drug wars and start buying up all the opium in Afghanistan, and then use it as medical heroin for all those countries with hospitals with no painkillers?

The opium growers were given money by the coalition forces to stop growing opium and grow other crops- but they were threatend by the Taliban not to do so.  The best solution is to destroy all the opium crops. Wonder why the high and mighty never think this? Maybe they are in on the profits.

The only ones who ever managed to stop opium poppy growing were the Taliban. Now the profits are shared between corrupt officials, the farmers, drug traffickers and Taliban insurgents.

If the crop was controlled and made legal, the Afghan economy could still benefit and we could cut out the bad guys, while the drugs could be put to good use in developing countries.

 Blizzie

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...s-utterly-wrong.html


This is an interesting read. Sorry cant change type face 

That pretty much echos what the majority have said in here & quite right too

Wow, and to think that if this was around 10 years ago my mate wouldn't have had her adorable 5 year old. She'll tell you it was putting her first born in the ground that made her take stock of her life and sort herself out. Actually thinking about it she might not be here either had this erm madness been around then.

It doesn't really matter.

This is interesting.
A response from Barbara Harris to someone campaigning against this project, in May of this year.
http://stuartsorensen.wordpres...ds-its-plans-for-uk/

 ”The UK Project Prevention will ONLY pay for long term birth control so now what will your argument be? No sterilization involved just getting addicts on birth control…………. The UK Director and financial backer just believe it will be easier to get the BMA’s support by removing sterilization.”

Seems like she's using the term 'long term birth control' to avoid claims that she is abusing vulnerable adults.

Another part of her response:

"She then went on to attack me personally when I asked her which groups of people would be offered sterilisation and if they would also target people with congenital hereditary disorders":

Her ideas and thoughts disgust me.  No doubt she's a God fearing woman.

that's a threat kind of  

she is evil

This is taken from the Wiki article on Barbara Harris. Some of her comments are outrageous:

Project Prevention (founded and formerly known as Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity  or C.R.A.C.K.) is an American non-profit organization which also has a presence in the United Kingdom, which pays drug addicts cash for volunteering for long-term birth control, including sterilization. Since January 2006 Project Prevention has offered US$300 (£200 in the UK) to each participant. As of 26 April 2010 (statistics page still current as of 17 October 2010 (2010 -10-17)^[update]) Project Prevention said it had paid 3,388 "clients" including 1,260 women sterilized by tubal ligation, 4,428 abortions and 47 men having vasectomies. 

Barbara Harris founded the organization in 1997 after she and her husband adopted four children from a drug-addicted mother. After the experience of helping the children through withdrawal and other health problems, she attempted to get legislation passed in California which would have mandated sterilization for mothers who gave birth to babies who were exposed to cocaine as fetuses; after this failed she started what is now called Project Prevention.

 Controversy

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". In interviews Barbara Harris compared pregnant women to dogs that need to be neutered. This stance has invoked comparisons by Concerned Women for America to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.Ms. Harris has repeatedly compared the women the program targets to animals, stating that "I’m not saying these women are dogs, but they’re not acting any more responsible than a dog in heat." She has also stated: "We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children." In other contexts, she again compared women to animals, stating, "they’re having litters. They are literally having litters", "we campaign to neuter dogs and yet we allow women to have 10 or 12 kids that they can’t take care of and, "we have campaigns to spay cats to prevent them from having unwanted kittens, yet we allow these women to have litters of 14 children." On the television news program 60 Minutes II, Ms. Harris was asked about these comments on a television program and reaffirmed them, saying, "Well, you know my son that goes to Stanford said ‘mom, please don’t ever say that again,’ but it’s the truth, they don’t just have one and two babies, they have litters."

British Isles

The group has an increasing presence in Britain, and the Project Prevention website has a "United Kingdom" section. Reports include an instance in May 2010: a woman, not an addict and accompanied by her 9-year-old son, was approached while leaving a clinic in Glasgow, Scotland by three women who said they were from Project Prevention and insistently offered £200 if she agreed to be sterilised. She reported that the same group had been approaching other women; Strathclyde police were informed, and advised anyone approached in a similar way to contact them

There has been criticism in Britain (e.g., by organisations Addaction, Victory Outreach, Hackney Dovetail Centre) and support (Reverend Martin Blakebrough, director of Camden's Kaleidoscope Project in north London). The British Medical Association stated that it did not have a view. Maria Cripps of the Hackney Dovetail Centre said "I think Barbara uses some very extreme examples to get her point across. It might work in America but Great Britain is a very different country. Harris admitted her methods amounted to "bribery", but said it was the only way to stop babies being physically and mentally damaged by drugs during pregnancy. The BBC made a television programme, called "Inside London: Sterilising The Addicts" ("BBC Scotland Investigates: Addicts - No Children Allowed" in Scotland), broadcast on 18 October 2010 by BBC One London, BBC One East Midlands and the BBC iPlayer.

Harris has said that Ireland might be her next target. Dr Fiona Weldon, clinical director of Dublin addictions treatment facility the Rutland Centre, said "People who suffer from addictions are not in the right frame of mind to be making decisions of this magnitude. While the people behind the scheme may be well intentioned, they are misguided and I think they could be leaving themselves open to litigation in the future. Imagine a woman who chooses to have full sterilisation and years later gets clean and realises she cannot have children."

Oh she's coming to Dublin? Wonder how she's going to make it work here, will they pay to send them to the uk for abortions?

Does she know we're a Catholic state?....

After hearing all of the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, I have reached the conclusion that the defendant's arse should be glued to a skateboard and she should be then escorted to the highest point in Bridgend at the earliest opportunity.

i wrote a huge reply then it went tits up and i cant be arsed to do it again...

sigh...

i'll just sum it up by saying it'll end up going back to the days where disabled were sterilised (and still are in some places)
it's addicts and alcholics now, fat people and smopkers next, then the jobless, then the disabled then it'll be the people who are not blone with blue eyes.....sound familiar?

this just reminds me of when they sterilised disabled people...

and thats what it will go back to, if this is allowed...

first it'll be heroin addicts, then cocoaine, then alcohol, then smoking, then the fat people, then the jobless, then the disabled, then the people with low IQ, then the people who dont have blonde hair and blue eyes...sound familiar??

they say it's voluntary...but i dont think it is, what possible choice would an addict wanting their next big hit, being dangled £200 in their face REALLY have?? i have friends who were addicts...they are not now and have lovely children and are lovely parents. just cos someone had something bloody awful happen to them...enough to turn to drugs...doesn;t mean they will be a fuck up forever.