Harm Reduction

[Boges]

I'm not going to provide a link for this issue. I'm sure you all know what it's about. In Vancouver people are able to get clean IV needs to get their Heroine fix on so they can reduce the chance of spreading HIV/AIDS etc.

Well news out this week, they also want to give people new crack pipes!!!!

Just a thought. Since these people still have to perform some illicit act to obtain the drugs they're hooked on, can't they spare some of the money to purchase the application device themselves?

I don't see how these programs do anything but enable drug addicts. It does zero to reduce their addiction.

We're not talking about Weed or anything. These drugs are seriously addictive and horrible for your health. I doubt there is any safe level of heroine use. Why not give the people that come to these places free methadone or something.

I think these programs just make the problem worse not better.

[Oleg Bach]

They are CRAZY - and those that support "harm reduction" really enjoy the control they have over sick drug addicted people - Much like the Catholic Church that would go into a tizzy if poverty and suffering suddenly disappeared....In my hood there are a couple of buildings that house drug addicts...Yesterday a mobile health unit was parked out in front handing out drug taking equipment...The addicts are all on disablity or welfare - Once they get their cheques they are broke in two days and steal in order to feed their habits.. They are malnourished...crazed and assisted by the state to stay in that state - Addicts will use certain feeding facilities in the area - Not because they can not afford food - but because they keep their money for dope - knowing they can eat for free - all this facilitation of drug addiction is horrible _ I have been watching it for a few years now - and all I see is death in slow motion called "harm reduction" Harm is harm even if it is reduced - It just takes longer to die under this liberal philosophy.

[Shwa]

I'm not going to provide a link for this issue. I'm sure you all know what it's about. In Vancouver people are able to get clean IV needs to get their Heroine fix on so they can reduce the chance of spreading HIV/AIDS etc.

Well news out this week, they also want to give people new crack pipes!!!!

Just a thought. Since these people still have to perform some illicit act to obtain the drugs they're hooked on, can't they spare some of the money to purchase the application device themselves?

I don't see how these programs do anything but enable drug addicts. It does zero to reduce their addiction.

We're not talking about Weed or anything. These drugs are seriously addictive and horrible for your health. I doubt there is any safe level of heroine use. Why not give the people that come to these places free methadone or something.

I think these programs just make the problem worse not better.

Well there is a method to their madnessnd Harm Reduction is one way of dealing with the rest of the madness.

The Canadian Harm Reduction Network

Here is a link to the Vancouver pilot project to distribute free crack pipes.

It's part of the city's harm-reduction strategy that seeks to reduce the transmission of disease while ensuring health-care and social workers are able to interact with hard-to-reach drug addicts.

"We want to do it in a way that we can evaluate this, because there's a couple of questions I hope we can answer by doing this," says Dr. Patricia Daly, the medical health officer for Vancouver Coastal Health.

And this...

Cavalieri agrees that in addition to keeping drug users safe, the real benefit of harm-reduction programs is that they connect drug users with health-care workers. That interaction, he says, will help some users enter rehab, while ensuring those who don't are able to stay healthy.

"Will these services stop them from using drugs? For some people it will, but some won't," he says. "Some will continue to use drugs but use them safely, some will cut back, and some will die, but their lives and health will be greatly improved."

Maybe next time you should actually provide a link to the story after having read it some so you have an idea of the issue.

[TimG]

I'm not going to provide a link for this issue. I'm sure you all know what it's about. In Vancouver people are able to get clean IV needs to get their Heroine fix on so they can reduce the chance of spreading HIV/AIDS etc.

You need treat this like a public vaccination program which does little to help the individuals but collectively reduces the incidence of disease in society. e.g. if there was a vaccine against HIV would you be in favour of the government paying to innoculate addicts even if it enabled their addiction? If yes then why is handing out crack pipes any different if, like a vaccine, it has been shown to reduce disease transmission? Edited August 3, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

You need treat this like a public vaccination program which does little to help the individuals but collectively reduces the incidence of disease in society. e.g. if there was a vaccine against HIV would you be in favour of the government paying to innoculate addicts even if it enabled their addiction? If yes then why is handing out crack pipes any different if, like a vaccine, it has been shown to reduce disease transmission?

When you develople a life support system for the dying - and drug addicts are in the slow process of dying - You prolong the suffering - prolong the theft - mayhem - violence - prostituion...It's like putting a 90 year old woman on diaysis...why? Because it becomes a buisness - those who support harm reduction and prolong addiction...usually are stake holders in this enterprise - they are addicted to an easy pay cheaque.

[Oleg Bach]

Harm Reduction is like insurance against job loss for parasites who are so delluded that they actually think they are doing good...I see it everyday. Tax payers supporting the sales of cocaine and crack cocaine along with pot. All these substances are bought for the addict via the social safety net by hard working people. Forget the crack pipes and needles...take a look at the millions of dollars handed over to crimminals that is public money - millions of dollars going to drug dealers...Harm reduction is also a facilitator for the money laundering industry. Hate to be blunt - sink or swim - If an addict wants to live and survive they will- and possibly get clean - If they do not want to get clean and die - that is their choice - THE lefties are big on pro-choice - the right to die - the right not to give birth etc...they are hypocrites - the average crack head is so crazy most will never recover - let them go---as for those that keep them alive longer _ let them get real jobs.

[Oleg Bach]

Harm reduction is an incrimental genocide of the non-compliant and undesirables of the nation - Liberal dupes do the dirty work of high end bankers who slowly kill what they find useless.

[Oleg Bach]

Harm reduction is like a long dagger....the do gooder dupes push it in one tenth of a centimeter at a time - eventually it reaches the heart and kills - those who propose the support of drug addiction in anyway have an unconscious murderous intent.

[jacee]

I'll leave those decisions to the professionals who do the work. If it saves a child from being born with AIDS, I'm for it. Many people become addicts because of chronic pain, including former athletes. For others it's the chronic emotional pain from childhood abuse. If you are not walking in their shoes you can't know. I see them all the time, and I'm just glad I'm not one of them.

[Oleg Bach]

I'll leave those decisions to the professionals who do the work. If it saves a child from being born with AIDS, I'm for it. Many people become addicts because of chronic pain, including former athletes. For others it's the chronic emotional pain from childhood abuse. If you are not walking in their shoes you can't know. I see them all the time, and I'm just glad I'm not one of them.

Very few become opiate or synthetic opiate addicts because of chronic pain. I have never seen a former "athlete" begging for money on the corner to buy crack...as for aids...giving a drug addict a clean pipe or syringe does not stop the spread of the virus - because harm reduction teams can not be with the addict 24 7 - If the addict does not have a clean needle - they use a dirty one. Again this liberal idea regarding child abuse might as well also be an excuse in the Jane and Finch corridor when a gang banger shoots a child - and we all say - the poor shooter never had a father or had an "abusive" one and it is not their fault that they are murderous - I don't care how they got that way...not my problem or societies problem.

In my hood I am apprehensive about leaving a door unlocked even for a moment..the addicts can not help themselves - they will strip you bike in twenty seconds to buy a rock of crack...BUT - I know most of them and they know me _ I am kind and civil and respectful - and most think twice before considering robbing me...because they have to live in the hood and they like this gentrified local.

Harm reduction is a bizarre approach to the problem. If there is poison in the well - cap it and do not let people even take a sip. Get rid of the drugs..but there is no political will to get rid of anything that is evil in this ammoral brave new world we live in...nothing sader than to see a young woman twitching and her spine contorting because the posions contained in crack have invaded her spinal cord - The worst thing I saw was one day in broad day light - a social worker - in the company of an addict - a dealer arrives and passes the dope to the addict - in full veiw of the social worker - there is something dreadfuly wrong with this picture.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not going to provide a link for this issue. I'm sure you all know what it's about. In Vancouver people are able to get clean IV needs to get their Heroine fix on so they can reduce the chance of spreading HIV/AIDS etc.

Well news out this week, they also want to give people new crack pipes!!!!

Just a thought. Since these people still have to perform some illicit act to obtain the drugs they're hooked on, can't they spare some of the money to purchase the application device themselves?

I don't see how these programs do anything but enable drug addicts. It does zero to reduce their addiction.

We're not talking about Weed or anything. These drugs are seriously addictive and horrible for your health. I doubt there is any safe level of heroine use. Why not give the people that come to these places free methadone or something.

I think these programs just make the problem worse not better.

Not to sound old fashioned by I am going to use a word ----EVIL.....there is no such thing as the reduction of evil - it is either evil or it is good...It can not be both...It is like saying that a person who is dead is alive and a person alive is dead...you can not have it both ways..drugs are supplied by crimminals that don't care if you and your kids are dead...as long as they profit - why is the governement assisting evil crimminals by handing out delievery systems to addicts?

[eyeball]

Get rid of the drugs..

You stand a better chance of rounding up all the druggies and getting rid of them instead.

Call it Operation Clean Sweep...mandatory drug testing of all citizens with summary execution for failing.

Probably good work if you could get it - I suspect there'd be a flood of applicants. I'd fund the program with a new Social Morality Tax on alcohol but perhaps that would be unfair.

It should only have to be a temporary tax so...

[Bonam]

I think "harm reduction" is a misguided middle of the road strategy. Either we as a society choose to ban drugs, in which case we obviously need to not take any steps to facilitate the use of drugs, or, we choose to legalize drugs, in which case we should rake in tax revenue from their use and make sure that they are used safely and reduce disease transmission. As it is, "harm reduction" is an implicit acceptance of drug use, making it essentially legal since people do it in plain view of public officials who are there specifically to facilitate it, and yet we deprive ourselves of the revenues that could be associated with it.

[dre]

I think "harm reduction" is a misguided middle of the road strategy. Either we as a society choose to ban drugs, in which case we obviously need to not take any steps to facilitate the use of drugs, or, we choose to legalize drugs, in which case we should rake in tax revenue from their use and make sure that they are used safely and reduce disease transmission. As it is, "harm reduction" is an implicit acceptance of drug use, making it essentially legal since people do it in plain view of public officials who are there specifically to facilitate it, and yet we deprive ourselves of the revenues that could be associated with it.

I think the policy is fine... if we are stupid enough to keep fighting the war on drugs then thats one thing, but the reality is that people are still going to use, and we might as well make sure they arent forced to use dirty needles etc. The war on drugs is about the dumbest thing we have ever done.

[Bonam]

I think the policy is fine... if we are stupid enough to keep fighting the war on drugs then thats one thing, but the reality is that people are still going to use, and we might as well make sure they arent forced to use dirty needles etc. The war on drugs is about the dumbest thing we have ever done.

If we as a society are to accept the "reality" that people are still going to use drugs and decide not to keep "fighting the war on drugs", then we should legalize drugs and tax them. That would both raise revenue and reduce crime. Giving drugs this unofficial acceptance while officially remaining illegal and untaxed is a major loss. I am opposed to such half measures, especially where the measures involves spending all the costs (to create and administer the facilities), but reaping none of the rewards (tax revenue and getting rid of the main business of organized crime).

[eyeball]

I think "harm reduction" is a misguided middle of the road strategy. Either we as a society choose to ban drugs, in which case we obviously need to not take any steps to facilitate the use of drugs, or, we choose to legalize drugs, in which case we should rake in tax revenue from their use and make sure that they are used safely and reduce disease transmission. As it is, "harm reduction" is an implicit acceptance of drug use, making it essentially legal since people do it in plain view of public officials who are there specifically to facilitate it, and yet we deprive ourselves of the revenues that could be associated with it.

Of course harm reduction is a poor substitute for what your talking about. It only exists because the right-wing has been calling all the shots taken in the war on drugs since Richard Nixon.

The real problem is that we don't have a comprehensive Recreational Substance Use Act.

Ironically governments have been facilitating millions of people getting wasted for decades and decades in Canada through their liquor stores.

Edited August 4, 2011 by eyeball

[dre]

If we as a society are to accept the "reality" that people are still going to use drugs and decide not to keep "fighting the war on drugs", then we should legalize drugs and tax them. That would both raise revenue and reduce crime. Giving drugs this unofficial acceptance while officially remaining illegal and untaxed is a major loss. I am opposed to such half measures, especially where the measures involves spending all the costs (to create and administer the facilities), but reaping none of the rewards (tax revenue and getting rid of the main business of organized crime).

If we as a society are to accept the "reality" that people are still going to use drugs

Well of course we are... we are going to accept that reality whether or not we have a war on drugs because its objectively true.

then we should legalize drugs and tax them. That would both raise revenue and reduce crime. Giving drugs this unofficial acceptance while officially remaining illegal and untaxed is a major loss. I am opposed to such half measures, especially where the measures involves spending all the costs (to create and administer the facilities), but reaping none of the rewards (tax revenue and getting rid of the main business of organized crime).

I agree with all that. Except we are too stupid as a nation to do any of it... so if things like needle exchanges help reduce the spread of aids and hep then we might as well have them. In the case the half measure is better than nothing.

[TimG]

If we as a society are to accept the "reality" that people are still going to use drugs and decide not to keep "fighting the war on drugs", then we should legalize drugs and tax them.

So I guess you must be an advocate for the unfettered sale of prescription drugs without a doctors prescription. After all, black market sales of prescription drugs are a huge problem too.

The "we should legalize and tax them" is a naive position based on a whole set of faulty assumptions. For example, bar owners are already liable for patrons who drink and drive. Do you really think that pharmacists and other drug legal dispensers should be liable for druggies that want their crack cocaine? Do you think they could even get liability insurance?

Even marijuana with its second hand smoke would quickly run afoul of various regulations we have in place for tobacco.

In other words, unless you are advocating a complete elimination of all drug regulations it is unlikely that legalization will change anything when it comes to drug related crime and addiction.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

You stand a better chance of rounding up all the druggies and getting rid of them instead.

Call it Operation Clean Sweep...mandatory drug testing of all citizens with summary execution for failing.

Probably good work if you could get it - I suspect there'd be a flood of applicants. I'd fund the program with a new Social Morality Tax on alcohol but perhaps that would be unfair.

It should only have to be a temporary tax so...

That's dumb - It reminds me of a question I asked of my semi-estranged wife. eg..."Who is to blame for the act of murder - the person who pays the assassin or the assassin"? To me you go to the source...You go to who caused the problem. It is not the addict that is the problem - I have no ill will towards these sick people...and would not suggest "execution" of those seeking comfort in a cruel world through the use of mood altering substances...

The source of the problem are the importers - the manufacturers and the high level dealers - along with the foot soldiers that are street dealers - In my neighbourhood is a character who for the last few years walks from bar to bar on the street selling cocaine - everyone knows him - the cops are aware of him - and no one arrests him...why?

[Oleg Bach]

That's dumb - It reminds me of a question I asked of my semi-estranged wife. eg..."Who is to blame for the act of murder - the person who pays the assassin or the assassin"? To me you go to the source...You go to who caused the problem. It is not the addict that is the problem - I have no ill will towards these sick people...and would not suggest "execution" of those seeking comfort in a cruel world through the use of mood altering substances...

The source of the problem are the importers - the manufacturers and the high level dealers - along with the foot soldiers that are street dealers - In my neighbourhood is a character who for the last few years walks from bar to bar on the street selling cocaine - everyone knows him - the cops are aware of him - and no one arrests him...why?

Getting rid of this established street dealer would be the begining or real harm reduction.

[Shwa]

Getting rid of this established street dealer would be the begining or real harm reduction.

Maybe. But it's a way for an enterprising kid to make quick money in neighbourhoods that have high unemployment.

So I see your drug dealing and raise you unemployment.

[kimmy]

Maybe. But it's a way for an enterprising kid to make quick money in neighbourhoods that have high unemployment.

So would robbing liquor stores and gas stations, and it would do less lasting damage.

I think "harm reduction" is a misguided middle of the road strategy. Either we as a society choose to ban drugs, in which case we obviously need to not take any steps to facilitate the use of drugs, or, we choose to legalize drugs, in which case we should rake in tax revenue from their use and make sure that they are used safely and reduce disease transmission. As it is, "harm reduction" is an implicit acceptance of drug use, making it essentially legal since people do it in plain view of public officials who are there specifically to facilitate it, and yet we deprive ourselves of the revenues that could be associated with it.

There are some drugs we can't legalize. They are simply too destructive to the people who use them to even consider the possibility. Whether it be medical side-effects, or the debilitating effects of long-term addiction, we can't sanction drugs that ruin the users. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but heroin and crack and meth are something completely different.

We as a society should do our best to prevent people from becoming addicted to these drugs.

And we as a society will fail. So what then?

Your idea of a dogmatic approach-- the drugs are illegal, so we must enforce the law and punish the users whenever we catch them! --what use is that?

First off, we won't catch them-- not many, at least.

Second, if we do, so what? A guy smokes up in front of a cop and we throw him in jail for a week for possession of a controlled substance. What good does that do? He gets to eat and shower and has shelter for a week, which is probably a good thing, and maybe gets some medical care. And then what? We find him again a month later and put him in jail again? What's the goal? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Neither of those objectives are served. Our jail space is at a premium already. What's the point of filling it even more with people who won't be rehabilitated, who won't be deterred from committing the same crime in the future, and who for the most part only pose a danger to themselves?

There's no practical benefit to taxpayers of an approach like that. So what's the use?

I think TimG said it well earlier. If handing out free crack-pipes to junkies will keep them from spreading disease, there's some benefit to society. If the person doing the handing out is able to make contact with the occasional junkie who wants to get into a treatment program, there's benefit to society as well.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe. But it's a way for an enterprising kid to make quick money in neighbourhoods that have high unemployment.

So I see your drug dealing and raise you unemployment.

I don't understand what you are saying in the last part - probably because when I hear an evil statement I go deaf. This guy that deals dope is not some enterprising kid - he is older - and a total alcoholic - who supports his heavy drinking habit by selling coke. This neighbourhood is upscale - but there are a few drug addicts and a lot of recreational users...as a friend of mine put it regarding drug use - "it's the easy way out" - As far as more poor hoods - it is better for a loser to collect a welfare cheque and manage that meger sum than go around poisoning people and ruining families.

[eyeball]

So I guess you must be an advocate for the unfettered sale of prescription drugs without a doctors prescription. After all, black market sales of prescription drugs are a huge problem too.

Go after big Pharma and the doctors for having such lax control over the distribution their products and prescriptions. If this was nuclear material we were talking about who would you go after?

The "we should legalize and tax them" is a naive position based on a whole set of faulty assumptions. For example, bar owners are already liable for patrons who drink and drive. Do you really think that pharmacists and other drug legal dispensers should be liable for druggies that want their crack cocaine? Do you think they could even get liability insurance?

Faulty assumptions? Bar and tavern owners (safe ingestion sites) are responsible for helping people get drunk on their premises. Are you suggesting that liquor store operators be held liable for the actions of people who get drunk on their own elsewhere? Okay.

Faulty assumptions my ass...this is feigned stupidity executed rather stupidly I might add.

Even marijuana with its second hand smoke would quickly run afoul of various regulations we have in place for tobacco.

Getting around this is as easy as baking a brownie.

In other words, unless you are advocating a complete elimination of all drug regulations it is unlikely that legalization will change anything when it comes to drug related crime and addiction.

In other words you're full of crap, just like Oleg except he has en excuse.

[TimG]

Go after big Pharma and the doctors for having such lax control over the distribution their products and prescriptions. If this was nuclear material we were talking about who would you go after?

You missed the point. Legalization is no panecea.

Faulty assumptions? Bar and tavern owners (safe ingestion sites) are responsible for helping people get drunk on their premises?

Are you suggesting that drugs would not be consumed in commercial establishments? Opium dens have been around a long time. Why wouldn't they come back if drugs are legalized?

Getting around this is as easy as baking a brownie.

And the medicinal compenents of marijuana can be put into a pill but that doesn't stop people from insisting they need to smoke the stuff to get the medicinal effect.

In other words you're full of crap, just like Oleg except he has en excuse.

You are living in a dream world if you think legalization of hard drugs will have any effect on drug related crime. Addicts will always need to commit crimes to fund their habits and there will always be suppliers that break laws to supply them. Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG