restrictions for 'registered addicts'
Apr 1st 2007, 8:07 pm
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
restrictions for 'registered addicts'
Hello All,
I am new to the site, although I have browsed as a guest for a while, and have decided I would like to ask you for some advice.
To give you all as much info to go on, I will try to be as honest as possible.
I had a misspent youth and got in to drugs very heavily. At that time in the mid 90's it was common practice (or so I believe) for GP's to register patients as 'registered addicts' with the Home Office, when prescribing certain medications.
Fast forward a few years and I am now no longer that person. I have been clean and sober for 5 years, I'm married with a child and just trying to move on in life and do the best I can.
I have travelled around and really love the states. Recently I have been thinking about training/studying and getting a career. I have in fact seen a place that I would really love to work at in the US. It is a boarding school for 'troubled teens'.
From what I can understand, I would not qualify for a visa because I am not a 'skilled worker'.
My question is this. Even if I trained and became qualified would my past be held against me?
Thank you for reading this. Any advice would be gratefully appreciated.
J
I am new to the site, although I have browsed as a guest for a while, and have decided I would like to ask you for some advice.
To give you all as much info to go on, I will try to be as honest as possible.
I had a misspent youth and got in to drugs very heavily. At that time in the mid 90's it was common practice (or so I believe) for GP's to register patients as 'registered addicts' with the Home Office, when prescribing certain medications.
Fast forward a few years and I am now no longer that person. I have been clean and sober for 5 years, I'm married with a child and just trying to move on in life and do the best I can.
I have travelled around and really love the states. Recently I have been thinking about training/studying and getting a career. I have in fact seen a place that I would really love to work at in the US. It is a boarding school for 'troubled teens'.
From what I can understand, I would not qualify for a visa because I am not a 'skilled worker'.
My question is this. Even if I trained and became qualified would my past be held against me?
Thank you for reading this. Any advice would be gratefully appreciated.
J
Apr 1st 2007, 8:37 pm
#2
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
If you have drug convictions... you really have put a wall in the way ...
Apr 1st 2007, 9:02 pm
#4
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
A friend of mine with a US husband was refused for having a 20 year old drug conviction...
Apr 2nd 2007, 12:14 am
#7
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
Ian
Apr 2nd 2007, 1:53 am
#8
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,181
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
All I said that hardship waivers are only ever granted if there is proof of hardship to a USC. Nowhere did I state that this might even remotely apply to the OP...
Apr 2nd 2007, 2:18 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
On Apr 1, 8:14 pm, ian-mstm <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think a waiver will come into this at all. It sounds like the
> OP, spouse and child are all UK citizens. Nothing about USC anywhere in
> the post. I think Ray is correct... if there are drug-related
> convictions, the OP's in for an uphill battle.
I didn't read anything in the OP's message that indicated a
conviction... he just admitted he's a recovered addict. I read his
post to mean that he had a GP's help in getting clean (as in,
prescribed medication to kick the habit), and was registered back home
as an addict, but no criminal procedings were involved.
Should that be the case, would he still need to declare he's an ex-
addict, even if he had no convictions?
It has come to light in the past that addicts in Canada who were sent
to US treatment facilities were later barred from travel because USCIS
has an entry for them being "ex-addicts", but that's because they went
to the US for treatment. From my understanding, medical files are
supposed to be somewhat private, so who's to know if someone has an
addiction? Ever time I get a questionnaire to fill out pre-surgery, or
first visit to a specialist or such, they want to know if I have
abused drugs, do abuse drugs, how much I drink, etc. They expect
people to be honest about such things because it may impact someone's
medical condition if they have or had a history of drug/alcohol abuse.
No one would be honest if that information were being reported
everywhere to keep people from travelling, etc.
S.
> I don't think a waiver will come into this at all. It sounds like the
> OP, spouse and child are all UK citizens. Nothing about USC anywhere in
> the post. I think Ray is correct... if there are drug-related
> convictions, the OP's in for an uphill battle.
I didn't read anything in the OP's message that indicated a
conviction... he just admitted he's a recovered addict. I read his
post to mean that he had a GP's help in getting clean (as in,
prescribed medication to kick the habit), and was registered back home
as an addict, but no criminal procedings were involved.
Should that be the case, would he still need to declare he's an ex-
addict, even if he had no convictions?
It has come to light in the past that addicts in Canada who were sent
to US treatment facilities were later barred from travel because USCIS
has an entry for them being "ex-addicts", but that's because they went
to the US for treatment. From my understanding, medical files are
supposed to be somewhat private, so who's to know if someone has an
addiction? Ever time I get a questionnaire to fill out pre-surgery, or
first visit to a specialist or such, they want to know if I have
abused drugs, do abuse drugs, how much I drink, etc. They expect
people to be honest about such things because it may impact someone's
medical condition if they have or had a history of drug/alcohol abuse.
No one would be honest if that information were being reported
everywhere to keep people from travelling, etc.
S.
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:13 am
#12
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
Thank you All so so much for your replies.
I think I need to clarify some things for you.
Myself, my spouse and our child are all UK citizens.
My spouse is also a recovering addict/alcoholic (we met through a recovery group in the UK). 5 years clean/sober and has a criminal record for drugs, ABH and 'drunk and disorderly'. All cautions but no convictions. Would these count?
I myself have no criminal record at all, not even minor offences. I had to have a police check a while back so that I could volunteer in a drug treatment centre and all was fine.
We both have a medical history the size of a small country but nothing serious in the past 5 years since things have changed.
My spouse is not a 'registered addict' with the Home Office here in the UK but I am (or so I was led to believe by a GP back in the mid 90's).
Thanks again
J
(I will have a look on Google and see if I can find out anything about 'registered addicts with the Home Office' and post back what I find, if anything).
I think I need to clarify some things for you.
Myself, my spouse and our child are all UK citizens.
My spouse is also a recovering addict/alcoholic (we met through a recovery group in the UK). 5 years clean/sober and has a criminal record for drugs, ABH and 'drunk and disorderly'. All cautions but no convictions. Would these count?
I myself have no criminal record at all, not even minor offences. I had to have a police check a while back so that I could volunteer in a drug treatment centre and all was fine.
We both have a medical history the size of a small country but nothing serious in the past 5 years since things have changed.
My spouse is not a 'registered addict' with the Home Office here in the UK but I am (or so I was led to believe by a GP back in the mid 90's).
Thanks again
J
(I will have a look on Google and see if I can find out anything about 'registered addicts with the Home Office' and post back what I find, if anything).
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:26 am
#13
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
I just found this on Google.
"The myth of the 'registered addict'
In the past, doctors were required to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office if they saw people addicted to certain controlled drugs, including heroin and methadone. The Chief Medical Officer kept details of those people who had been notified on what was known as the Addicts Index. People who had been notified to the Addicts Index often called themselves ‘registered addicts.’
The Addicts Index now no longer exists. It was a victim of government spending cuts in 1997.
The Addicts Index was confidential and no information from it was ever given to the police, other countries, employers or anyone else. Now that the Addicts Index has gone, the information has been stored securely.
Information about how many people are asking for help with drug problems is now collected regionally. This information is held in strict confidence too. Usually the only personal information that is put on the forms that go from your GP or drug service to the ‘regional database’ is your initials, date of birth and general area where you live."
From what I can see, this is good news for us.
J
"The myth of the 'registered addict'
In the past, doctors were required to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office if they saw people addicted to certain controlled drugs, including heroin and methadone. The Chief Medical Officer kept details of those people who had been notified on what was known as the Addicts Index. People who had been notified to the Addicts Index often called themselves ‘registered addicts.’
The Addicts Index now no longer exists. It was a victim of government spending cuts in 1997.
The Addicts Index was confidential and no information from it was ever given to the police, other countries, employers or anyone else. Now that the Addicts Index has gone, the information has been stored securely.
Information about how many people are asking for help with drug problems is now collected regionally. This information is held in strict confidence too. Usually the only personal information that is put on the forms that go from your GP or drug service to the ‘regional database’ is your initials, date of birth and general area where you live."
From what I can see, this is good news for us.
J
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:51 am
#14
Account Closed
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 191
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
I just found this on Google.
"The myth of the 'registered addict'
In the past, doctors were required to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office if they saw people addicted to certain controlled drugs, including heroin and methadone. The Chief Medical Officer kept details of those people who had been notified on what was known as the Addicts Index. People who had been notified to the Addicts Index often called themselves ‘registered addicts.’
The Addicts Index now no longer exists. It was a victim of government spending cuts in 1997.
The Addicts Index was confidential and no information from it was ever given to the police, other countries, employers or anyone else. Now that the Addicts Index has gone, the information has been stored securely.
Information about how many people are asking for help with drug problems is now collected regionally. This information is held in strict confidence too. Usually the only personal information that is put on the forms that go from your GP or drug service to the ‘regional database’ is your initials, date of birth and general area where you live."
From what I can see, this is good news for us.
J
"The myth of the 'registered addict'
In the past, doctors were required to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office if they saw people addicted to certain controlled drugs, including heroin and methadone. The Chief Medical Officer kept details of those people who had been notified on what was known as the Addicts Index. People who had been notified to the Addicts Index often called themselves ‘registered addicts.’
The Addicts Index now no longer exists. It was a victim of government spending cuts in 1997.
The Addicts Index was confidential and no information from it was ever given to the police, other countries, employers or anyone else. Now that the Addicts Index has gone, the information has been stored securely.
Information about how many people are asking for help with drug problems is now collected regionally. This information is held in strict confidence too. Usually the only personal information that is put on the forms that go from your GP or drug service to the ‘regional database’ is your initials, date of birth and general area where you live."
From what I can see, this is good news for us.
J
Last edited by conisby; Apr 2nd 2007 at 10:55 am.
Apr 2nd 2007, 12:21 pm
#15
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Re: restrictions for 'registered addicts'
The biggest problem you have, not including the visa issue, is your spouses criminal record, especially the drugs part of it. Drug offences are a big no no, the only drug offence which is waiverable is a single offence of possession of cannabis under 30 grams. All other drug offences = no admittance
J