A man in his early 70s was found dead by paramedics at an address in Arlington Road, Camden Town, on Saturday

FEARS that street heroin sold in Camden could be deadly has shaken those out on the street this week, (Bad batch of heroin warnings, August 17).

Some will think to hell with those hard drug addicts – they know the risks they are taking. Others with more com­passion will be considering what a progressive society can do to help some of the borough’s most vulnerable people.

There was a massive outcry in Camden around 15 years ago when the idea of “shooting galleries”, as they were then called, was first floated.

The concept was to set up safe spaces for people addicted to hard drugs, with testing kits to prevent overdose and trained officials on hand to help.

Overdose deaths are rising. As traditional heroin supplies are stalling, synthetic alternatives like fentanyl are being used. There is no doubt this is a cut-throat industry. A grain of sands-worth of this synthetic heroin can kill in some cases, experts told us this week. And yet it is still being pushed on to the desperate and needy.

Purely because it is not a populist policy, the government has repeatedly dismissed calls to help addicts at risk of overdose by introducing safe spaces.

Today they are not called shooting galleries, but “drug consumption rooms” or “pilot overdose prevention centres” – softer terms, but ones reactionary politicians still cannot get on board with.

“There is a drug-related death crisis going on in the country,” according to a letter from more than 80 prominent medical, academic, and third sector organisations calling for these centres to be set up now.

The government, however, has repeatedly indicated it has no plans to introduce them, and overdose prevention centres are not mentioned in its 10-year drug strategy.

These centres have been introduced in at least 14 countries, including Scotland, across more than 130 sites. Numbers of fatal overdoses reduced significantly in these areas, research has shown.

The government argues that overdose prevention centres effectively condone illicit activities. But there is no evidence overdose prevention centres are associated with increased initiation or frequency of drug use.

The same backward argu­ments were used in response to the 1980s HIV epidemic, at a time needle and syringe programmes in the UK were controversial. These are now a source of pride in our NHS.

The government claims that providing services effectively legalises drugs and providers would be at risk of liability for criminal activity. A legal framework would be required, but this is not beyond the government’s ability to devise.

Overdose prevention centres are not a so-called silver bullet to reduce drug-related deaths. But they are a reasonable response to an emerging crisis and if there is one area in London where a safe drug space pilot would make a real difference, it is Camden.