Safe Injection Sites

[HopAlongBunny]

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?

[Greyblades]

Britain was right to end the chinese war on drugs?

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

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

I think we're safe.

Who said I agree?

[Sarmatian]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[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.

[Idaho]

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.