Rex has touched on a very interesting issue. Should the health system be paying for the treatment of conditions caused by illegal activities? The links between early marijuana use and psychosis and the impacts of Heroin and other drug abuse are very well documented.

The community has made it very clear that it does not sanction this activity and has made it illegal. So a drug user has ignored the community's measures to protect the user, potential users, and the community itself. And users have made their purchases in a manner that precludes any legal recourse to recover damages from the supplier.

The supplier provides no proof of identity or evidence of the transaction, no warnings on the consequences of use, no list of ingredients, no contact details in the event of a warranty claim and pays no tax on the profits.

So why are we continuing to pick up the tab for people who have made no effort to assist the community in helping themselves?

Clearly, if we want to reduce the size of the health budget, then putting those who have failed a blood test at any time in the previous 10 years on a full user pays health system will do it.

If we want to deliver the best care to those who deserve it, when they need it, then user pays health care for drug users will do the job.

If we really want to shut down the illegal drug industry then removing free medical care for their customers will do the job quicker than anything else. And if we want to keep our community free of drugs then annual blood testing of people who have failed a test in the past will do the job.

This should not apply to nicotine addicts or alcoholics because the suppliers are known, liability can be traced and the community has collected large sums in tax from the sale of the products that can, at least partially, fund the resulting medical expenses. But we have no obligation to pay for the treatment of the consequences of unlawful activity.

A little draconian, isn't it, Perseus? The logical extension is that if someone smashes himself up in a stolen car, he should be left on the road to bleed to death. Many might think this reasonable enough, but would we think it reasonable to do the same to someone hit by car while jaywalking?

A more consistent response would be to let injuries and illnesses take a back seat for treatment when they can be attributed to risks the sufferer could reasonably be expected to have known. This would see BASE jumpers, for example, treated for their injuries with much the same urgency as junkies, and those whose problems are beyond their control given priority.

Just a suggestion, but not one I'd like to try to enforce.

Peter. Thank you for pointing out that prevention is better than treatment.
There is of course much more money to be made from treatment and this may be why the focus is not on prevention.