Safe Injection Sites

Actually we could go broader than the title suggests.
Harm reduction, a viable health strategy or simply greasing the wheels on a slippery slope?

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...l-meth-needle/

As noted in the article, Vancouver (Canada) had North Americas' first safe injection site.
It has done nothing to reduce or deter drug use, but it has decreased the number of deaths from overdose, the spread of HIV and other complications from shared/re-used needles.
On a law & order metric, I guess the experiment could be termed a failure.
As a health program, it is very successful.

Thoughts?

Britain was right to end the chinese war on drugs?

Prohibition is ridiculous, illogical, immoral and self defeating. It survives through repeated reinforcing messages and feedback loops. Get prosecuted for drugs? Best chance to reduce the punishment is to say how you were 'trapped' and now you have been given a 'second chance' thanks m'lord.

The biggest advocates of prohibition? Ex addicts working in the prohibition business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Prohibition is ridiculous, illogical, immoral and self defeating. It survives through repeated reinforcing messages and feedback loops. Get prosecuted for drugs? Best chance to reduce the punishment is to say how you were 'trapped' and now you have been given a 'second chance' thanks m'lord.

The biggest advocates of prohibition? Ex addicts working in the prohibition business.

---

Lord God almighty....I find myself in near-complete agreement with Idaho on an issue....

I dearly hope this is not a harbinger to Gabriel doing riffs on his trumpet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Lord God almighty....I find myself in near-complete agreement with Idaho on an issue....

I dearly hope this is not a harbinger to Gabriel doing riffs on his trumpet.

---

No, that happens when you, Idaho, me, Beskar, Hooahguy, Sarmation, Husar and Gilrandir all agree.

I think we're safe.

OK, on topic.

Let me make one point straight off - I'm not interested in making a moral argument against functioning addicts. Most people are functioning addicts of some nature or another, be it caffeine, alcohol or nicotine, or a mixture thereof.

However, the people who end up in front of a judge aren't functional - if they were their habit would not have been exposed.

Then you have to consider the addictive nature of opiates, remember that Opium, Laudanum, Heroin and Morphine all started out as medicines. Heroin was originally intended as a medication less addictive than Morphine I read something recently that people who get addicted to Morphine often end up that way when given as few as TWO spare doses after being sent home from hospital.

It hurts, they take it, it hurts, they take it - they're hooked.

It's this addictive nature that led to the banning of Opiates about a hundred years ago and I'm not convinced that "prohibition has failed" just because people still take recreational Opiates. By that metric all laws fail because people break them.

So the way I see it you have two options - ban Opiates, ruin lives, spread diseases or un-ban Opiates, ruin lives, probably fewer diseases.

So - the question, really, is how many more people would take Opiates if they were legal. Difficult to tell, but the UK's public smoking ban suggests that when an activity is restricted at least some addicts seek medical help to give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

OK, on topic.

Let me make one point straight off - I'm not interested in making a moral argument against functioning addicts. Most people are functioning addicts of some nature or another, be it caffeine, alcohol or nicotine, or a mixture thereof.

However, the people who end up in front of a judge aren't functional - if they were their habit would not have been exposed.

Then you have to consider the addictive nature of opiates, remember that Opium, Laudanum, Heroin and Morphine all started out as medicines. Heroin was originally intended as a medication less addictive than Morphine I read something recently that people who get addicted to Morphine often end up that way when given as few as TWO spare doses after being sent home from hospital.

It hurts, they take it, it hurts, they take it - they're hooked.

It's this addictive nature that led to the banning of Opiates about a hundred years ago and I'm not convinced that "prohibition has failed" just because people still take recreational Opiates. By that metric all laws fail because people break them.

So the way I see it you have two options - ban Opiates, ruin lives, spread diseases or un-ban Opiates, ruin lives, probably fewer diseases.

So - the question, really, is how many more people would take Opiates if they were legal. Difficult to tell, but the UK's public smoking ban suggests that when an activity is restricted at least some addicts seek medical help to give up.

---

I see opiates as a more potent version of alcohol: addictive, gives pleasure to its takers. Legalise, regulate, tax. Same with cannabis, and other such substances. And the public smoking ban wasn't a ban on smoking, but a ban on imposing smoking on others. Let the government impose all kinds of horror warnings on the packets of opiates, cannabis or whatever. I'd especially like cocaine to be heavily taxed, as it's the drug of choice for the wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, that happens when you, Idaho, me, Beskar, Hooahguy, Sarmation, Husar and Gilrandir all agree.

I think we're safe.

---

Who said I agree?

Morally I can't bring myself to ever vote for someone willing to legalize opiates for recreational use.

This is a discussion where the science needs to be brought to the front of the conversation on what happens to people brains on various substances. It's one thing to tax marijuana consumers, but given what we already know about the addictive nature of opiates, as PVC has explained, legalizing and taxing seems to be morally bankrupt. They simply have no choice in the matter but to spend all of their money on buying the drug and thus paying the tax. I can't endorse a policy that tramples on their dignity like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Morally I can't bring myself to ever vote for someone willing to legalize opiates for recreational use.

This is a discussion where the science needs to be brought to the front of the conversation on what happens to people brains on various substances. It's one thing to tax marijuana consumers, but given what we already know about the addictive nature of opiates, as PVC has explained, legalizing and taxing seems to be morally bankrupt. They simply have no choice in the matter but to spend all of their money on buying the drug and thus paying the tax. I can't endorse a policy that tramples on their dignity like that.

---

Addiction is more a matter of predisposition and living circumstances than the characteristics of a substance or activity.

Why would a policy of legalization trample on dignity any more than a policy of criminalization?

Philosophically, what "choice" is there that addiction can affect or take away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Addiction is more a matter of predisposition and living circumstances than the characteristics of a substance or activity.

Why would a policy of legalization trample on dignity any more than a policy of criminalization?

Philosophically, what "choice" is there that addiction can affect or take away?

---

A. Why are you awake right now. go to bed.
B. Addiction is based in part on living circumstances yes, but the physical characteristics play a major role. People across all socio-economic levels get addicted to opiates. Unless you have studies that show otherwise, I feel that you down play that aspect too much.
C. You can criminalize and have a smarter, mandatory rehabilitation policy than the current punitive driven prohibition. Do you not agree that there are various ways of handling substance abuse within the frame work of prohibiting it legally?
D. Addiction saps your mental willpower and leaves you unable to make choices necessary for your quality of life. it consumes your time and your money at the expense of your job, your friends, your family, your health. To say that those strongly addicted still have the option to stop taking the drug is not in alignment with my understanding of addiction.

Quote:

---

A. Why are you awake right now. go to bed.

---

Irregular schedule.

Quote:

---

B. Addiction is based in part on living circumstances yes, but the physical characteristics play a major role. People across all socio-economic levels get addicted to opiates. Unless you have studies that show otherwise, I feel that you down play that aspect too much.

---

Physical characteristics play a role in the sense of accessibility and usability, the social conditions in which the usage of one substance over another is promulgated. So whether a substance is more problematic than another may have the least to do with the intrinsic chemical properties of those substances, on a population level.

I understand the desire for research references, and I'll look for some, but the straightforward "addiction rankings" of substances you will find tend to be very old and/or focused on superficial psychological surveys of how addicts feel about various drugs. For now, be more careful when comparing drugs than to just start with the social problems we face around a given drug encapsulated by the present moment.

Quote:

---

C. You can criminalize and have a smarter, mandatory rehabilitation policy than the current punitive driven prohibition. Do you not agree that there are various ways of handling substance abuse within the frame work of prohibiting it legally?

---

Let's say I'm not strictly opposed to a Prohibition framework - but I have yet to see a proposal preferable to wider changes along a Decriminalized Regulation framework.

Quote:

---

D. Addiction saps your mental willpower and leaves you unable to make choices necessary for your quality of life. it consumes your time and your money at the expense of your job, your friends, your family, your health. To say that those strongly addicted still have the option to stop taking the drug is not in alignment with my understanding of addiction.

---

Is this about the effect of addictive behaviors on quality of life, or on "choice" per se? There are many systemic entities that affect both behavior and quality of life (negatively), including "sports" and "socialization", "government" and "capitalism"...

As you recall, I question the viability of both a neurological or a philosophical representation of concepts like self-control, impulsivity, and volition.

Well, what is strange about the whole "addiction is nothing physical or chemical, but merely social" is that I thought that most of the substances one can get physically addicted to actually do alter neron receptors either by destroying them or by clogging them or changing them which all causes the brain to crave more of the substance in question to fulfill certain needs it has in terms of neural stimuli. If there were no physical addiction, why would a sudden cold abstinence of an addict cause all the physical symptoms like immense pain, puking, etc.?

I get that not everyone may always be affected in the same way, this can already be observed with caffeeine. Some can drink more with little effect, others begin to tremble after a cup. But even there the heavy users have an increased tolerance/need because synapses are altered and the brain gets used to a certain dosage. Both coffeine and nicotine addicts need a certain amount of the drug as a base level to be in the same mental state as someone who is not addicted to the drug. Which makes especially a nicotine addiction a waste of money in order to feel normal. :shrug:

Now as to why people need to use drugs in the first place, well, capitalism/darwinism.
You can talk all day about what socioeconomic reasons people have to take drugs but it all boils down to capitalism/darwinism. People drink a liter of coffee every morning to perform well in a competitive job situation. People smoke to deal with the stress of a competitive job situation/exams/social interaction in a competitive environment. Other people have "failed life" and cannot deal with it and then attempt to attain the chemical bliss instead. Since poor lazy losers belong in jail anyway, the criminalization is probably the best idea.

Quote:

---

Well, what is strange about the whole "addiction is nothing physical or chemical, but merely social" is that I thought that most of the substances one can get physically addicted to actually do alter neron receptors either by destroying them or by clogging them or changing them which all causes the brain to crave more of the substance in question to fulfill certain needs it has in terms of neural stimuli. If there were no physical addiction, why would a sudden cold abstinence of an addict cause all the physical symptoms like immense pain, puking, etc.?

---

You misunderstood what I was saying. The physiological and behavioral consequences themselves of addiction are of course neurological. This is a separate concept from how and to what extent the intensity and persistence of addiction is related to the chemical properties alone of some substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You misunderstood what I was saying. The physiological and behavioral consequences themselves of addiction are of course neurological. This is a separate concept from how and to what extent the intensity and persistence of addiction is related to the chemical properties alone of some substance.

---

Yes, I thought both you and ACIN had a point, I didn't quote you as there was no particular point of yours I wanted to prove wrong.

I agree that my post was terrible though, the amount of spelling errors alone... :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Morally I can't bring myself to ever vote for someone willing to legalize opiates for recreational use.

This is a discussion where the science needs to be brought to the front of the conversation on what happens to people brains on various substances. It's one thing to tax marijuana consumers, but given what we already know about the addictive nature of opiates, as PVC has explained, legalizing and taxing seems to be morally bankrupt. They simply have no choice in the matter but to spend all of their money on buying the drug and thus paying the tax. I can't endorse a policy that tramples on their dignity like that.

---

Prohibition is not just oppressive, illiberal and expensive - it simply doesn't work! Usage increases. Costs (both financial and societal) spiral. Organised crime balloons and corrupts whole nations.

What is the current opiate prohibition actually achieving? Opiate users in the UK are disproportionately homeless people who have been through the care system, or traumatised ex-soldiers. What possible upside is there to making these people criminals and under the power of dealers?

It seems to me that prohibition allows us a society to package up a whole raft of social issues and blame them on substances and their users. Legal regulation would make us accept that these ills are ours to own.

You've identified the problem when you state the issue in your moral framework. That things you don't want to happen/are sinful/dangerous - therefore must be illegal. It's a fundamental error of legal and cultural judgement. Should having extra marital affairs be illegal, or do you morally approve? Where do you stand on sexual fantasies about your mother in law? Perfectly acceptable or illegal?

Idaho, I think you are misunderstanding my position. Please see my reply to Monty about rehabilitation and preventative programs under a prohibitive law.

Also, I am not saying it is immoral therefore it should be illegal. I am saying that setting up a system for people to legally become addicted and then milk them for tax money is abusive and therefore should be avoided. Since it is abusive, it happens to also be immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Also, I am not saying it is immoral therefore it should be illegal. I am saying that setting up a system for people to legally become addicted and then milk them for tax money is abusive and therefore should be avoided. Since it is abusive, it happens to also be immoral.

---

True, if that's the way it would actually play out. But for some reason most people aren't drawn to the life of a heroin addict. And those that are, are almost always the most dismal, poor and *#*@ed over people. The kind that it's just plain spiteful to criminalise.

I am a regular cannabis user. Have been for 30 years. But I actually don't think that legalisation of cannabis is a priority. It's annoying, pointless and unjust that it is illegal, but it's not significant. Legalisation and control (influence?) of opiate, cocaine and amphetamine use - drugs I have no interest in using - is the big problem. Prohibition of those messes up lives and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I am a regular cannabis user. Have been for 30 years. But I actually don't think that legalisation of cannabis is a priority. It's annoying, pointless and unjust that it is illegal, but it's not significant. Legalisation and control (influence?) of opiate, cocaine and amphetamine use - drugs I have no interest in using - is the big problem. Prohibition of those messes up lives and society.

---

Legalisation should happen so they can be taxed. "Sin" taxes are already a safe way to raise taxes. Eliminate the black market so the market can generate revenue for the state and not just the dealers.

You will always have dealers. Whether they be state, corporation or black market. It's just about taxing them, and making them operate within civilised norms. This will always be a struggle, but there is massive scope for rapid improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You will always have dealers. Whether they be state, corporation or black market. It's just about taxing them, and making them operate within civilised norms. This will always be a struggle, but there is massive scope for rapid improvement.

---

We tax alcohol and tobacco dealers without political cost. The state receives zero revenue from the other recreational drugs, but has to pay the cost of dealing with their results.

Heroin should be free. With support and programmes for people to get off it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

True, if that's the way it would actually play out. But for some reason most people aren't drawn to the life of a heroin addict. And those that are, are almost always the most dismal, poor and *#*@ed over people. The kind that it's just plain spiteful to criminalise.

---

Nobody is drawn to the life of a heroin addict. Yet here they are...

YOu are not even trying to understand me. There is a difference between making someone a criminal and making someone a patient. I am advocating for the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Legalisation should happen so they can be taxed. "Sin" taxes are already a safe way to raise taxes. Eliminate the black market so the market can generate revenue for the state and not just the dealers.

---

You realise there's a hug Black Market in Cigarettes, right?

We're focusing on illegal opiate addicts - heroin addicts - we aren't looking at morphine addicts or functional addicts who are wealthy enough to pay for high-quality product. A lot of the people you see on the street are those who can't afford good product, or who can't afford product without failing to pay the rent.

These visible addicts are quite possibly the tip of the iceberg.

Whether that means you should tighten restrictions or legalise though, difficult to say. If you legalise there's a pretty good chance usage will go up. There may be more addicts, and depending on the price of legal heroin they may still end up broke and on the streets.

At the same time, people will definitely bug legal heroin, cut it and sell it on the black market to make a profit - because that will make them lots of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

You realise there's a hug Black Market in Cigarettes, right?

We're focusing on illegal opiate addicts - heroin addicts - we aren't looking at morphine addicts or functional addicts who are wealthy enough to pay for high-quality product. A lot of the people you see on the street are those who can't afford good product, or who can't afford product without failing to pay the rent.

These visible addicts are quite possibly the tip of the iceberg.

Whether that means you should tighten restrictions or legalise though, difficult to say. If you legalise there's a pretty good chance usage will go up. There may be more addicts, and depending on the price of legal heroin they may still end up broke and on the streets.

At the same time, people will definitely bug legal heroin, cut it and sell it on the black market to make a profit - because that will make them lots of money.

---

Is there a similar scale problem with black market and adulterated tobacco and alcohol as there is with currently illicit drugs? Brand names came into being because they were recognised as safe at a time when food and other adulteration was rife.

The only way to fully elimiate a black market is to reduce the price of the product to such levels that the turn over of watered down or even stolen goods isnt worth the effort. I dont see that happening with drugs so the drug war would continue to some extent.

I wonder what is more difficult, having the police fight a drug war normally or when pure product is legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Is there a similar scale problem with black market and adulterated tobacco and alcohol as there is with currently illicit drugs? Brand names came into being because they were recognised as safe at a time when food and other adulteration was rife.

---

Booze? No. cigarettes?

Hell yes.

Illegal cigarettes are big business, probably bigger than illegal drugs, not only do you have many more addicts to sell to, you also have lower penalties if caught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Booze? No. cigarettes?

Hell yes.

Illegal cigarettes are big business, probably bigger than illegal drugs, not only do you have many more addicts to sell to, you also have lower penalties if caught.

---

Because it is not an illegal product. Slap a tax on anything and someone will try to smuggle it. That's been an element of most economies for pretty much forever.

If we're talking about black markets for cigarettes, then I understand that usually these are standard legal cigarettes. The illegality, the smuggling, derives from buying the cigarettes in a lower-tax jurisdiction and reselling them without right in a higher-tax jurisdiction.

So these bootleg cigarettes are not any more harmful than the convenience store cigarettes you normally lay eyes on. Like the inter-Scandinavian alcohol smuggling business, I guess, an organized extension of what drives private Finns to buy booze in Estonia and bring it back to Finland for personal use. But ciggies.

Well, that sort of smuggling also happens with money. People get money in a high tax country and try to smuggle it to a low tax country to avoid paying the higher taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The only way to fully elimiate a black market is to reduce the price of the product to such levels that the turn over of watered down or even stolen goods isnt worth the effort. I dont see that happening with drugs so the drug war would continue to some extent.

---

There's still this angle though, the price. Think of sugar. How often is there stretched or cut sugar sold at a cheaper price on the black market?
Are people even looking for that or is sugar so cheap and abundant that it's not worth the effort? Similar for salt.
Now drugs have a much higher price, but why is their price so high? Is it perhaps only so high because the drugs are illegal, which makes the plants harder to grow, the import mechanics more complicated and dangerous and it "forces" the producers to pay higher wages and buy weapons and transport vehicles like airplanes and submarines etc.?

So perhaps if these drugs were legal, their price would drop significantly due to higher supply, and at least for some of them, the incentive to smuggle them would drop. I guess it is possible that some would still have a higher price since the plants need special attention or the chemical process of making them is inherently expensive, but cannabis for example seems easy to grow and I would assume some others would also have price drops.

And we could have the actual COCA Cola back! :clown:

Whenever legal prescribing of Heroin is tried seriously, it leads to less problems, less use, less crime, less new addicts. But politicians prefer dealers to take the blame for lots of deaths and crime, than have their own policies take responsibility for a few.

Quote:

---

banner
This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.
Senior police officers push for doctors to prescribe heroin 10/1/02

LIZ MACKEAN:
The battle against heroin has not been a happy one. It's easily measured by a dismal statistic - when it began in the '60s, addicts numbered 500. Now there are more than 500 times that - the Home Office estimates at least 270,000. No wonder the Home Secretary is considering a change of tack.

DR ANNE READ:
(CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST)
Hello. Come on up.

MACKEAN:
Sarah, not her real name, has a 20-year habit which is now perfectly legal. Every day she collects her dose of heroin from the chemist and injects it at home. About 300 addicts in the country are prescribed heroin - diamorphine - and the Government might extend the scheme. It's liberated Sarah from a life of crime.

"SARAH":
Now I'm used to it. Instead of taking methadone, I'm back on that and it's great. I'm leading a lovely life. I call it a clean life, cos to me, I'm clean. I'm not running around shoplifting. I'm not in the vicious circle. I used to call it living in a triangle. I'd score, then go shoplifting or doing credit cards or whatever, then home, then score¿ I was going in like a triangle. Awful life.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1755279.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, that sort of smuggling also happens with money. People get money in a high tax country and try to smuggle it to a low tax country to avoid paying the higher taxes.

There's still this angle though, the price. Think of sugar. How often is there stretched or cut sugar sold at a cheaper price on the black market?
Are people even looking for that or is sugar so cheap and abundant that it's not worth the effort? Similar for salt.
Now drugs have a much higher price, but why is their price so high? Is it perhaps only so high because the drugs are illegal, which makes the plants harder to grow, the import mechanics more complicated and dangerous and it "forces" the producers to pay higher wages and buy weapons and transport vehicles like airplanes and submarines etc.?

So perhaps if these drugs were legal, their price would drop significantly due to higher supply, and at least for some of them, the incentive to smuggle them would drop. I guess it is possible that some would still have a higher price since the plants need special attention or the chemical process of making them is inherently expensive, but cannabis for example seems easy to grow and I would assume some others would also have price drops.

And we could have the actual COCA Cola back! :clown:

---

There's also the regulated market argument. If a produce is legal if it follows regulations, it can be sold legally on the market, and recognised brands will spring up that reflect the regulation. In a market where adulteration is dangerous, people will gravitate towards the recognised brands. Food, drink and medicines used to be adulterated back in the 19th century, before regulations cleaned these products up and companies following regulations cleaned up in the market.

I agree with Idaho as to prohibition, at least in general. The costs outweigh the curtailment almost every time and associated problems tend to become more intransigent.

I am not sure I see the value in criminalizing any substance in and of itself. Education, fraud reduction, etc. all have value.

While not interested in paying for it out of my tax dollars, I am of the mind that doctors should be able to prescribe pretty much whatever they wish that provides care for their patient. If that is a light dose of heroin to get a damaged addict up to normal and functional, I conceive of that more as a medical issue than a political one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

While not interested in paying for it out of my tax dollars, I am of the mind that doctors should be able to prescribe pretty much whatever they wish that provides care for their patient. If that is a light dose of heroin to get a damaged addict up to normal and functional, I conceive of that more as a medical issue than a political one.

---

Well, I'd wager to guess that paying for that would require fewer of your tax dollars than the war on drugs, the crime, the prison cells and medical bills that you currently pay for either directly or indirectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

While not interested in paying for it out of my tax dollars, I am of the mind that doctors should be able to prescribe pretty much whatever they wish that provides care for their patient. If that is a light dose of heroin to get a damaged addict up to normal and functional, I conceive of that more as a medical issue than a political one.

---

Why are you Americanos so averse to helping your fellow citizens and having a healthy and cohesive society? It's the cheapest and most effective approach.

Save money, reduce negative social impacts and aid people to get their life back "on the rails"
Decriminalization and/or legalization seem to be good choices; I wouldn't be surprised if giving addicts pharmaceutical grade heroin would be cheaper and safer than "war".

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...harm-reduction

So now that drugs arent the devil anymore does that mean we no longer have to take shit about the opium wars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

So now that drugs arent the devil anymore does that mean we no longer have to take shit about the opium wars?

---

Nowt wrong with them. China made war on someone to secure a supply of horses. Making war on China to pay for tea is on the same level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

So now that drugs arent the devil anymore does that mean we no longer have to take shit about the opium wars?

---

No, Britain is still the devil.

If they qualify for Medicare or Medicaid in the usual fashion, so be it. I don't think subsidizing addicts is any more valid than taking my money to pay to fix someone else's car.

So, to clarify, the indigent should receive this kind of care in the same way that indigents receive other forms of medical care. No more and no less. Others should pay for care as they do for any other medical condition. Again, no more and no less.

But don't worry your happy little Euro-hearts too much. The USA is heading towards single payer inexorably anyway. Though I predict we will STILL find a way to pay more for care than you lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I am of the mind that doctors should be able to prescribe pretty much whatever they wish that provides care for their patient. If that is a light dose of heroin to get a damaged addict up to normal and functional, I conceive of that more as a medical issue than a political one.

---

Treatment of alcoholism included?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If they qualify for Medicare or Medicaid in the usual fashion, so be it. I don't think subsidizing addicts is any more valid than taking my money to pay to fix someone else's car.

So, to clarify, the indigent should receive this kind of care in the same way that indigents receive other forms of medical care. No more and no less. Others should pay for care as they do for any other medical condition. Again, no more and no less.

But don't worry your happy little Euro-hearts too much. The USA is heading towards single payer inexorably anyway. Though I predict we will STILL find a way to pay more for care than you lot.

---

Ban lawyers. Or at least deal with ambulance chasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, that happens when you, Idaho, me, Beskar, Hooahguy, Sarmation, Husar and Gilrandir all agree.

I think we're safe.

---

I think we can all agree that the user name is SarmatiAn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I think we can all agree that the user name is SarmatiAn.

---

Or, alternately, Samaritan.

In unsafe, unregulated markets the only one who suffers are the consumers. Look at China - the locals would prefer to spend vastly more on baby milk that comes from "The West" than the local stuff since they trust it.

Knock off cigarettes and alcohol are often substandard - as i having it is illegal after all.

Not allowing something where people can kill themselves but allow something where they can easily go on a spree and kill many others is nonsensical.

Legalise it, treat drug addiction as a medical issue for the poor as well as the rich. Good news is with the War on Terror we can continue to piss away money on destructive escapades without home or resolution for years to come!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I think we can all agree that the user name is SarmatiAn.

---

You are, of course, correct.

A clear failure of my Latinitas for which I shall never forgive myself.

Please excuse me whilst I go to the Front to face the enemies of the Empire, sword in hand. I may be some time.

Especially if those enemies have Mead.

On a completely different note, the idea of safe-injection is an oxymoron in itself, it causes serious damage to the body especially with the impurities in many of the drugs. If you really want to help Heroin users, get them smoking it instead, it is a lot safer and it is what is recommended in recovery services. You also want to flood the community with naloxone as well, get it in supermarkets, shops, etc to save lives.

As for personal opinion on the law, it should be decriminalised for the user, but heavy punishments on the supplier. This way, you can provide help and support to individuals with addiction and are using, keeping them outside of the criminal system. The drugs should be restricted and should only be used in a medical context.

With the physical/psychological angles of addiction, it is very easy to cure physical alcohol addiction. You are looking at 7-10 days at home taking Librium (this may need a detox unit if unable to do it at home for medical or social reasons). People in fact feel pretty good Librium once it gets into the system, and it manages the withdrawal very well. The problem is, the psychological addiction. The best way to describe it is that as human beings, we are very good at adapting and becoming experts, unfortunately, we can become experts in being alcoholics. So now you have a cleaned up but still expert alcoholic and without any preparation for the cognitive changes that need to take place, they will go back to the drink. Also, for those who used to be alcoholics, abstinence is the best way, as once they do drink, they re-activate the neurons where they used to be expert drinkers and before you know it, the wine bottle is empty and opening up the second. It requires immense social and psychological support, and usually a complete change in their environment as you need to proactively change your life.

Clean injectable heroin and clean equipment is safe. You could use moderately like that for decades without having many issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Clean injectable heroin and clean equipment is safe. You could use moderately like that for decades without having many issues.

---

I think the keywords has been highlighted there "Moderately" and " without many issues".

When it comes to these things, moderation is definitely not being considered in the slightest. Unfortunately, the heroin is not going to be 'clean', and there will be damage especially after prolonged use, especially if they do not rotate the spots and the consequences is amputation and even death. If you go near any drug recovery centre, you will come across individuals who are missing digits (injecting into knuckles is a big one) even meet some who inject in really dangerous areas such as the neck and the groin. You will have people paralysed as a result of deep vein thrombosis. This is not even going into the effects of the drug itself on the body. There are also cognitive changes as heroin users become more 'child-like' in their behaviour and mannerisms. There is also the fact these are people and unfortunately their journey comes about through factors such as environment (everyone in their circle uses drugs) or they have been abused in the past, either physically or sexually, and they use it as a means to escape their living hell of those memories.

Sure, you can paint this picture I have seen in drug advocacy circles of some hard-working businessman who drives a BMV, married with kids, who has a personal safe-injection room and likes to shoot up after a hard day at work and hurts no body, but that is simply a fantasy that doesn't exist. I have seen people who liked to paint this picture, then come into recovery services about the struggles they are having and how it was a hook for something not going right in their life. People turn to drugs to compensate for things in their life, this comes under the social causes of addiction.

An interesting easy to access video about Social Causes of Addiction can be watched here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Whilst there are practical reasons for decriminalisation and enabling individuals to receive the help and support they need, drug advocacy is a different kettle of fish and it is dangerous.

I don't think anyone is advocating "Oh yes! Everyone should be an addict!"
Given that we have a problem of opiod abuse, the question is how to handle it.
Incarceration does not seem to help, and may actually deepen the problem; access to drugs in jail, criminal record making productive living hard, giving these now criminals a real identity and peer group that is antisocial...etc.
Treatment allows a person to receive help. Help with the addiction, help with underlying causes, avenues to growth and the possibility of a drug free future. It reduces the "free manpower" for criminal pursuits; a person on maintenance does not need to steal to support the habit, it takes one bullet out of the gun for people looking to control others for profit.
The most strident advocates for keeping it illegal and hopeless are those who profit from things as they are. Including legitimate business like private prisons, security firms and other interests peddling security.

edit: To people who declaim: "You are not going to pick MY pocket to support the filthy habits of others!"
Your pockets are already being picked; it is not a question of "forking over", the question is how much, and to what ends.

Further to what we have discussed above:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...se-of-opioids/

Free drugs!
How awesome is that?
Seriously though, it works, its cheaper than war, safer, and allows people caught in a bad place to contribute to society.
The counter-argument amounts to "keep pouring money into an imaginary solution"

Drugs are a symptom, not the underlying problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

It should be treated by the Medical system... and that way is a HELL of a lot cheaper to boot.

The fact the question is raised after Prohibition was such a disaster is insane.

~:smoking:

Ended up linking the same exact video as me, Rory. :laugh4: