Europe: Curing, not punishing, addicts

[maldon_road]

The age old debate. Do we go after the drug trade with a vengeance or do we tolerate it? Nobody disagrees with going after the heroin pushers but whether we should be assisting addicts by providing needles is another story - an issue in this country right now. And decrimming of marijuana is a hot issue, let alone legalizing it.

Europe: Curing, not punishing, addicts

In contrast to U.S. policy, European countries focus on harm reduction -- and it works.

Europeans are well aware of the U.S. track record against illegal drug use. Since President Nixon first declared the war on drugs in 1971, our country has locked up millions of its citizens and spent hundreds of billions of dollars (many claim that if incarceration costs are figured in, a trillion dollars) waging this "war." Despite these efforts, U.S. government figures show the overall rate of illicit drug use has remained about the same.

By contrast, according to the 2007 U.N. World Drug Report, the percentage of Europeans who use illicit drugs is about half that of Americans. (Europe also has fewer than half as many deaths from overdoses.) How have they managed that -- in Europe, no less, which shocks some American sensibilities with its underage drinking, marijuana tolerance and heroin-friendly "needle parks"?...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

[Wilber]

Harm reduction is just a PC term for postponing the inevitable. Society has an obligation to provide the help and resources for these people to get themselves straightened out, not to aid them in self destructive behavior.

[August1991]

The age old debate. Do we go after the drug trade with a vengeance or do we tolerate it?

I am normally in favour of individual freedom but having seen up close a streetside heroin centre in Amsterdam, I wonder now.

Heroin is an evil drug and I don't think we should ever encourage its use. The use of opium in China, prior to 1949, is an example to consider.

For the record, Harper is also not convinced that safe injection sites are the right approach:

Harper told a news conference May 25 the Conservative government is still deciding on the fate of the site where addicts are allowed to shoot heroin or use other injection drugs under the supervision of health-care workers.

"I'm not committed to it," he said in Vancouver.

CTV

With that said, this website (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) makes a strong argument for legalization:

COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!

ASK US WHY

After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

[ScottSA]

With that said, this website (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) makes a strong argument for legalization:

Sure, but that's because it takes a large hunk of trouble off their plate and deposits it on someone else's plate.

[bk59]

Sure, but that's because it takes a large hunk of trouble off their plate and deposits it on someone else's plate.

Or maybe it is because they have been on the so-called front lines and seen that the "war on drugs" is not working.

[ScottSA]

Or maybe it is because they have been on the so-called front lines and seen that the "war on drugs" is not working.

No, they see that a lot of their time is taken up fighting it.

[August1991]

No, they see that a lot of their time is taken up fighting it.

Duh. That's like saying a rise in the gasoline price means that I spend more on gasoline.

Either I live with a smaller budget for other expenses, or I change the way I use gasoline.

ScottSA, are you so thick in regular life?

[myata]

Why can't (and shouldn't) the two approaches be combined? I.e fighting large scale drug trade while providing (reasonable) assistance to the addicts.

[maldon_road]

Why can't (and shouldn't) the two approaches be combined? I.e fighting large scale drug trade while providing (reasonable) assistance to the addicts.

Isn't that what Harper is advocating?

[myata]

Then (if it is so indeed) I'm with him on this one. If we allow drug business set up shops around the country freely and without restriction (maybe even ads? - "Our weed is guaranteed 10% more potent than competition - or your money back"), we may end up with too many addicts to handle, no matter how much money (and do-good talk) is pumped into it.

[fellowtraveller]

Harm reduction is just a PC term for postponing the inevitable. Society has an obligation to provide the help and resources for these people to get themselves straightened out, not to aid them in self destructive behavior.

I support the safe injection sites for a simple reason: junkies are humans, not garbage and as worthy of help as anybody else. They cannot be helped when they are dead from diseases contracted from dirty needles. So, let's help them help themselves. Not only is it cheap, it is the right thing to do.

[ScottSA]

Duh. That's like saying a rise in the gasoline price means that I spend more on gasoline.

Either I live with a smaller budget for other expenses, or I change the way I use gasoline.

ScottSA, are you so thick in regular life?

Only my biceps.

I don't pretend to know what you're talking about here, but since changing the way one uses gasoline is far easier said than done, and in fact well nigh impossible, as evidenced by the first world's response to the current hysteria of "global warming" and rising gasoline prices, I suspect that building more jails and spending more time busting drug addling criminals is the only available solution. Enabling them and removing responsibility from them in favor of the state is hardly the best solution.

[Wilber]

I support the safe injection sites for a simple reason: junkies are humans, not garbage and as worthy of help as anybody else. They cannot be helped when they are dead from diseases contracted from dirty needles. So, let's help them help themselves. Not only is it cheap, it is the right thing to do.

The way to help them help themselves is to provide comprehensive treatment immediately if they ask for it, even if it means housing and feeding them somewhere away from the environment they were in. There is nothing safe about injecting drugs. I think the name "safe injection sites" itself is complete BS.

[jdobbin]

The way to help them help themselves is to provide comprehensive treatment immediately if they ask for it, even if it means housing and feeding them somewhere away from the environment they were in. There is nothing safe about injecting drugs. I think the name "safe injection sites" itself is complete BS.

What happens if they don't ask for it?

[capricorn]

I support the safe injection sites for a simple reason: junkies are humans, not garbage and as worthy of help as anybody else. They cannot be helped when they are dead from diseases contracted from dirty needles. So, let's help them help themselves. Not only is it cheap, it is the right thing to do.

Compare this to a person who is on a hunger strike, for whatever reason. Do we force feed the person to make sure he/she doesn't die or get sick from lack of nourishment? After all, they are humans too and engaging in an activity that is detrimental to their health. Should we help them help themselves? Just a thought.

[Fortunata]

Compare this to a person who is on a hunger strike, for whatever reason. Do we force feed the person to make sure he/she doesn't die or get sick from lack of nourishment?

In some cases yes we do.

[Wilber]

What happens if they don't ask for it?

If they are committing crimes to feed their habit you could institutionalize them, otherwise you can't do anything. If they insist on continuing to inject street drugs, injection sites can only delay the inevitable. I'm quite prepared to help people who want to be helped but I don't feel any guilt over the consequences of their poor decisions.

[Moxie]

If they are committing crimes to feed their habit you could institutionalize them, otherwise you can't do anything. If they insist on continuing to inject street drugs, injection sites can only delay the inevitable. I'm quite prepared to help people who want to be helped but I don't feel any guilt over the consequences of their poor decisions.

ME either Wilber.

A junkie will kill to get high, their desire for another fix is stronger than their sense of survival. Treatment only works if they have decided to get clean, and stay clean. It's not an easy problem to fix.

[August1991]

I don't pretend to know what you're talking about here, but since changing the way one uses gasoline is far easier said than done, and in fact well nigh impossible, as evidenced by the first world's response to the current hysteria of "global warming" and rising gasoline prices, I suspect that building more jails and spending more time busting drug addling criminals is the only available solution. Enabling them and removing responsibility from them in favor of the state is hardly the best solution.

If more police time is taken up by drug matters, then police must either accept to spend less time elsewhere or change how they deal with drug matters. The whole idea of LEAP is to change how we deal with drug matters.

Similarly, if the price of gasoline goes up, you must either accept to spend less on other stuff or else change how you use gasoline. For example, you could buy a vehicle with a smaller engine or move closer to your place of work.

Only my biceps.

Touché. Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[marcinmoka]

I suspect that building more jails and spending more time busting drug addling criminals is the only available solution

Considering the current costs associated with sustaining just one single inmate, me thinks this is not the best route.

And while it pains me to be providing a 'fix' to junkies, my overly pragmatic side believes if methadone is indeed in the $30 range for a monthly supply, I think I prefer this option.

Edited October 28, 2007 by marcinmoka

[luvacuppajoe]

Considering the current costs associated with sustaining just one single inmate, me thinks this is not the best route.

Those costs could conceivably be lowered through amended government policy.

And while it pains me to be providing a 'fix' to junkies, my overly pragmatic side believes if methadone is indeed in the $30 range for a monthly supply, I think I prefer this option.

I think the cost of methadone maintenace is considerably higher than $30 a month, or $360 per year.

Treatment for Ontario correctional inmates apparently ran at about $10,000 per year each in 2000.

More recently, The College of Family Physicians of Canada put the figure at $5,000 - $6,000 a year for community based programs and $22,000 for NAOMI (North American Opiate Medication Initiative) which is the free heroin program in Vancouver and Montreal.

[Wilber]

Considering the current costs associated with sustaining just one single inmate, me thinks this is not the best route.

And while it pains me to be providing a 'fix' to junkies, my overly pragmatic side believes if methadone is indeed in the $30 range for a monthly supply, I think I prefer this option.

However a druggie who commits a million a year in property crime to feed his habit is not a cost to society.

I think society's function should be to try and fix peoples drug problems, not enable them.

[marcinmoka]

I think society's function should be to try and fix peoples drug problems, not enable them.

This sounds all fine and dandy as an ideal, but how does one 'fix' peoples drug problem in a practicable sense without going bankrupt?

In that sense, I would prefer the methadone program, which even wit the high costs of distribution and administrative procedures would still be cheaper (and hopefully more empirically effective) than endless psychological counseling/therapy sessions and the like.

Treatment for Ontario correctional inmates apparently ran at about $10,000 per year each in 2000.

luvacuppajoe, were you able to locate a breakdown of the costs, i.e, acquisition, admin, distribution, counselling, etc for the methadone program?

[ScottSA]

This sounds all fine and dandy as an ideal, but how does one 'fix' peoples drug problem in a practicable sense without going bankrupt?

Very simple. Take them off the street, thereby eliminating the social cost they are causing, including property and personal damage, and throw then in the tank, where the cost of incarceration is quantified. Cold turkey works just as well as anything else I can think of, considering that the recidivism rate is in the 70 - 90 percentile no matter what method is used. If they do it again after they get let out, throw them in again.

I don't know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that most drug addicts are not in jail just because they got caught with a syringe in their arm.

[Wilber]

This sounds all fine and dandy as an ideal, but how does one 'fix' peoples drug problem in a practicable sense without going bankrupt?

In that sense, I would prefer the methadone program, which even wit the high costs of distribution and administrative procedures would still be cheaper (and hopefully more empirically effective) than endless psychological counseling/therapy sessions and the like.

We pay anyway. If an addict commits a million in property crime every year we all pay for that not just if we happen to be a victim but for increased insurance costs and municipal taxes as well as in the price of everything we buy.

Endless counseling and therapy probably won't do much good unless you get them out of their present environment and away from drugs. Just putting them on methadone won't do that. It may salve your conscience because you feel like you are doing something but it does nothing to get addicts of drugs, it just makes it easier for them to stay addicted.