Safe Injection Sites

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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?

[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.

[Montmorency]

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

Irregular schedule.

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.

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.

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.

[Idaho]

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?

[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.

[Gilrandir]

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

Or, alternately, Samaritan.

[rory_20_uk]

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!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Idaho]

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

[Beskar]

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:


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.