Giving junk to Junkies

[jacee]

yes not funding drug dealers and crack houses...

Insite doesn't pay for drugs.

You don't know much about addiction treatment do you?

"Mandatory" doesn't "entice" them to quit.

However, users of Insite are encouraged to enter drug treatment.

[Black Dog]

So do you suggest that suicidal people shouldn't be stopped - by force if necessary - from taking their own lives? How is this any different? Drug use is as much a death sentence as suicide is. Yet why is it that we have no qualms in 'committing' a person to an institution if they want to kill themselves? Isn't that using 'force'?

You can't play favourites here.

If drug addicts refuse to get treatment, then they should not be enabled to continue their destructive habit. It's no different than handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person.

A very poor analogy. Addiction is obviously not the same as suicidal tendencies. Addiction is better compared to a chronic disease that needs to be managed.

Fact is, time and time and again, it has been shown that mandatory treatment programs are not effective in helping people kick the habit. That's really all there is to it.

The state should never facilitate behaviour that is clearly self-destructive in nature.

The state does so all the time.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Black Dog

[Guest Manny]

Alcohol is poison. In fact more poisonous than many realize. Yet we provide bars, places where people can go get liqoured up. Ever seen someone who's drunk in a bar? Sure, all the time. Some fights too. Some die, some kill others with their vehicles. But bars continue to operate.

We also have Alcoholics Anonymous for people who feel they have an addiction problem and need help. Joining AA does not mean you are required to quit. You can keep attending AA as long as you like. And you can keep going to bars, even while you're in AA. Or you can buy government regulated booze at the LCBO, and drink it at home.

Viva le differance?

Edited April 23, 2012 by Manny

[Savant]

Alcohol is poison. In fact more poisonous than many realize. Yet we provide bars, places where people can go get liqoured up. Ever seen someone who's drunk in a bar? Sure, all the time. Some fights too. Some die, some kill others with their vehicles. But bars continue to operate.

Sorry, but your comparison is flawed. You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts.

A better parallel would have been tobacco and smoking. There is no 'safe' number of cigarettes that a person can smoke, so this would have been a far better position to argue from.

However, had you gone that way, I would have countered by suggesting that we have people who advocate for marijuana legalization, and studies have shown that inhaling marijuana smoke is no less risky than inhaling tobacco smoke. Mind you the point is still apt that we have governments that refuse to ban cigarettes despite knowing the damage it does and the cost to both people and the health care system.

In the end we have to ask ourselves whether the 'greater good' is served by being 'enablers' of drug addicts. Frankly I see this as the easy way out, and a way to ignore the problem. Instead of dealing with the problem of addiction head on, we instead allow people to continue in their destructive ways.

The latter is far more cruel imho.

[Guest Manny]

Sorry, but your comparison is flawed. You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts.

If you drink enough alcohol, you WILL die, simple as that. No ambiguity.

Yes, you can take a smaller dosage and you'll be safe. On the other hand that level keeps dropping, as we see by the amount tolerated in your blood alcohol level to allow you to drive a car. Basically, no amount is acceptable. We can argue whether that's fair, or whether it was done by political pressure from groups who have an agenda. But that's the way it is today, agenda driven not scientific or even logical reasoning.

I wouldn't bring marijuana into it, because

-It's illegal

- It's shown to be harmless.

Although the disconnect between the laws on it and alcohol are even more startling.

Point is, we do allow people to imbibe in things that are known to be harmful. New research indicates that alcohol may play an important role in the development of cancer. Despite that, the status quo will likely be maintained, they won't prohibit alcohol like they did before. Why? Because they know what happened before with prohibition, it didn't solve the problem they were trying to solve, and it made matters worse in other ways.

That's why you'll find lots of people making the same argument for drugs. Not that we should want more people to get into drugs, that would be even worse for society. But there are certain very difficult facts we need to face. This is a tremendously difficult problem that can't be eliminated. The best thing we can hope for is some kind of control.

I'm not sure that the InSite will work, but I know what won't work. What hasn't worked already in the past. Prohibition, incarceration, court ordered rehab. It's already proven to fail, and cause other problems. You know what they say about insanity, doing the same things over and over again but expecting different results.

And while I wish it could be as simple as what you say, force people into rehab, that most likely will not work. Again we have to look at the reality of the addict. They will simply go underground. Hidden from view, buying narcotics off the black market, supporting organized crime. Committing crimes themselves. In fact they are underground, right now.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Manny

[Black Dog]

In the end we have to ask ourselves whether the 'greater good' is served by being 'enablers' of drug addicts. Frankly I see this as the easy way out, and a way to ignore the problem. Instead of dealing with the problem of addiction head on, we instead allow people to continue in their destructive ways.

The latter is far more cruel imho.

The first thing to recognize is the futility of preventing people from engaging in dangerous behaviour. Whether we're talking alcohol, tobacco, speeding or drugs, people are going to do it. The best course of action as a society is to mitigate against the negative impacts to the individual and society as a whole and not close your eyes and hope the problem goes away if you throw enough cops at it.

Harm-reduction, that is, helping people manage their addictions, putting them in touch with services they need, bringing the problem of addiction out of the underground is the exact opposite of ignoring the problem.

[cybercoma]

Drug use is as much a death sentence as suicide is. Yet why is it that we have no qualms in 'committing' a person to an institution if they want to kill themselves? Isn't that using 'force'?

You're talking about two completely different systems. Prisons and asylums are both institutions, but one is for health care, the other criminal justice. They're two different systems with very different purposes. What you're arguing against is treating drug use as a healthcare issue, while at the same time comparing it to a mental health issue.

[cybercoma]

Sorry, but your comparison is flawed. You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts.

The biggest myth ever perpetuated is that you can't consume drugs in moderation as safely as alcohol and tobacco. You can actually use drugs as hard as heroine and cocaine in moderation just as safely as using alcohol and tobacco. Safer than tobacco even. Before it was prohibited people could go to their pharmacies and get these drugs. Opiates are used in medication all the time today even, to manage pain for example.

The problem is the underground, unregulated, and criminal market that provides these things to users. There's no way of controlling quality and dosages because this market is illegal. If the drug market was out in the open and regulated the way the alcohol market is, then you would see far fewer problems.

When the trade and use is forced underground, people hide their addictions and avoid going to get help because they don't want to be punished as criminals. We need to stop punishing people for drug abuse and start treating it exactly the same way we treat people addicted to alcohol and tobacco. I would even argue the effect of prohibition laws goes against people's right to life, liberty, and security of the person because it has a disparate effect on the health of people based on the drugs they consume. Those who consume alcohol and tobacco are not punished for their addictions, while others are. It means that the government has effectively passed legislation that discourages people from being out in the open with their problem and getting the help that they need. Hundreds of "junkies" die every year because they face potentially severe penalties for what they're doing. That's not justice and it's inhumane.

Edited April 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts.

What about the point that millions can safely consume other drugs in low to moderate amounts too?

Why do I get the sense you'd force everyone into rehab and not just those addicts who have real problems?

[Savant]

If you drink enough alcohol, you WILL die, simple as that. No ambiguity. Yes, you can take a smaller dosage and you'll be safe. On the other hand that level keeps dropping, as we see by the amount tolerated in your blood alcohol level to allow you to drive a car. Basically, no amount is acceptable.

That's not accurate. In fact studies have shown (and I can dig up links to back this up) that people who do NOT drink any alcohol at all are at a higher health risk than those who are light drinkers. (IE, glass of wine a day etc.)

Point is, we do allow people to imbibe in things that are known to be harmful.

Sure. However risk comes into play. You can die from drinking too much Coke (soft drink) as witnessed in recent news. No one suggests we should ban Coke. However, the addictive qualities of certain drugs makes it irresponsible to allow those drugs to be obtained freely.

And while I wish it could be as simple as what you say, force people into rehab, that most likely will not work. Again we have to look at the reality of the addict. They will simply go underground.

We could say the same about those who are suicidal. We can hospitalize them and hope that when they are released back into society that they won't kill themselves. However it doesn't always work out that way. Many are released and then end up dead. Does this mean we shouldn't try?

That's my issue here. Places like Insite are basically saying that society has thrown up their hands and won't bother trying to stop these people from ruining their lives anymore. Just enable them to keep destroying their body and pretty soon they won't be a problem anymore.

I think these people deserve better. People need to step up and help these lost souls instead of taking the easy way out.

[Savant]

The first thing to recognize is the futility of preventing people from engaging in dangerous behaviour. Whether we're talking alcohol, tobacco, speeding or drugs, people are going to do it.

So does that mean we should just give up? No point having minimum age laws for alcohol since kids will drink anyway? Same for smoking? Heck, we can't stop people from drinking and driving, so why even try? We will never stop terrorists, why even try? Even child porn, why fight it when you can never put a dent in the number of pervs out there?

Why? Because society - by and large - doesn't believe in defeatist ideology. Just because an corrective action won't totally eradicate a particular behaviour doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Savant]

The biggest myth ever perpetuated is that you can't consume drugs in moderation as safely as alcohol and tobacco. You can actually use drugs as hard as heroine and cocaine in moderation just as safely as using alcohol and tobacco. ... The problem is the underground, unregulated, and criminal market that provides these things to users. There's no way of controlling quality and dosages because this market is illegal. If the drug market was out in the open and regulated the way the alcohol market is, then you would see far fewer problems.

Oh yeah? Like OxyContin for example? Drugs that are highly addictive can never be allowed to be disytributed freely. Time and time again society finds out that there are some drugs that can just never be allowed to be given openly since the addictive nature of the drug is just too high.

Hundreds of "junkies" die every year because they face potentially severe penalties for what they're doing. That's not justice and it's inhumane.

You're right, but they should be taken off the street and detoxified, not given drugs and fresh needles and told to go nuts.

[cybercoma]

That's not accurate. In fact studies have shown (and I can dig up links to back this up) that people who do NOT drink any alcohol at all are at a higher health risk than those who are light drinkers. (IE, glass of wine a day etc.)

There's also studies that show even moderate drinking is linked to oesophageal cancer. I can dig up links to back this up.

[cybercoma]

You're right, but they should be taken off the street and detoxified, not given drugs and fresh needles and told to go nuts.

Seriously... how many times does it have to be said that InSite does not distribute drugs? Moreover, upstairs from InSite is a OnSite. You should probably read about that because it certainly doesn't fit with your idea of telling addicts to "go nuts."

[Savant]

Seriously... how many times does it have to be said that InSite does not distribute drugs?

I never said it did. However the thread topic is about that concept, and the same backers from Insite have being doing 'test programs' that involve giving away free heroin. (Look up NAOMI and SALOME if you want more details.) This is the way these drug 'enablers' want to go. It's bad enough that they keep addicts hooked on drugs, they also want to provide those drugs for free.

[cybercoma]

I never said it did. However the thread topic is about that concept, and the same backers from Insite have being doing 'test programs' that involve giving away free heroin. (Look up NAOMI and SALOME if you want more details.) This is the way these drug 'enablers' want to go. It's bad enough that they keep addicts hooked on drugs, they also want to provide those drugs for free.

So you're not saying they give out drugs, even though in the post I quoted you said just that and in this post you're trying to tie insite to some supposed drug-distribution program. Are you kidding me? Get your message straight.

[cybercoma]

North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) published the results of the project showing that "North America’s first heroin therapy study keeps patients in

treatment, improves their health and reduces illegal activity." The Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness (SALOME) was an initiative to see if synthetic medications could be used in the treatment of heroin addiction.

I know conservatives don't want drug-addicts to get the medical attention that they need, but I want heroin addicts to get treatment and stay there, get healthier and stop doing illegal things to get drugs or funding for drugs. Moreover, the European trials of using Dilaudid® showed that addicts were more likely to get and keep jobs when their addiction was under control. If that means prescribing them opiates that are completely legal to help them recover, so be it. Doctors prescribe opiates to patients all the time. Since drug addiction is a medical issue, I don't see the problem with doctors prescribing opiates here.

If you want to talk about banning all opiates, opiate derivatives, and synthetic opiates, then might I suggest that you're off your rocker. There are many people that require these for their health and well-being for all kinds of other health issues. However when it comes to drug addictions, you want the government to keep doctors from using the most effective means proven to treat addiction. Not only is it inhumane, but any act passed by the government to get in the way of this would very likely be shot down by the courts as a violation of life, liberty, and security of the person.

Forget the legal arguments though. How can you live with yourself arguing that people should be denied effective treatment for their illnesses because you have some moral hangup about it? I find that shameful.

[Savant]

Forget the legal arguments though. How can you live with yourself arguing that people should be denied effective treatment for their illnesses because you have some moral hangup about it?

Moral hangup? My objections aren't moral in nature at all. I don't have a problem with people - who genuinely need it - getting powerful drugs to deal with pain. That's not the issue here though.

What I do object to is the idea that those who are addicted to drugs should be allowed to freely continue said behaviour without any intervention from society. I'm totally fine with detox, and I would have no objeciton to giving addicts as much free herion (or whatever they are hooked on) they need so long as it is part of a actual detox program that has pre-defined goals. There are plenty of detox programs with very respectable success rates, so let's get the addicts OFF the drugs, instead of just sitting back and watching them destroy their lives and their bodies.

[cybercoma]

Moral hangup? My objections aren't moral in nature at all.

Well you certainly don't have a rational justification for your objections, so I was being generous.

What I do object to is the idea that those who are addicted to drugs should be allowed to freely continue said behaviour without any intervention from society.

You couldn't be more wrong. InSite, NAOMI, and SALOME are intervention programs.

I'm totally fine with detox, and I would have no objeciton to giving addicts as much free herion (or whatever they are hooked on) they need so long as it is part of a actual detox program that has pre-defined goals. There are plenty of detox programs with very respectable success rates, so let's get the addicts OFF the drugs, instead of just sitting back and watching them destroy their lives and their bodies.

Ok good. So then you do support InSite, NAOMI, and SALOME. Glad we could come to terms.

[eyeball]

Moral hangup? My objections aren't moral in nature at all.

Are you kidding, that's all they are and your denial of that is as amoral as it gets.

[Savant]

InSite, NAOMI, and SALOME are intervention programs.

Insite is NOT an intervention program. It is a place where drug addicts can go to shoot up drugs. There is no intervention at all, which is why there are so many objections. If they WERE intervening - we wouldn't be having this debate.

Well you certainly don't have a rational justification for your objections, so I was being generous.

I could say the same about your protestations. What rational person would voluntarily and knowingly allow a person addicted to drugs to continue said conduct knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is. It boggles the mind that someone would actually try and suggest that people be voluntarily allowed to stay addicted.

I don't object for moral reasons. This isn't an issue of behaviour of the addicts that bothers me. They're addicted, their behaviour is a funciton of that. My objection is based on the grounds that places like Insite are acting as enablers to prolong a person's addiction to drugs, ignoring the impact these drugs have not only on the person who takes them, but on those around them. That includes any children they have and the community, who undoubtedly suffer from the crimes these addict commit to sustain their habit. Even then what bothers me more is not the crimes, but that we - as society - knowingly allow this to happen.

Addicts deserve better. They deserve a society that will take a stand and act to get them clean. What they don't deserve is a society that believes 'helping' means to give them a fresh needle and a place to shoot up so they remain addicted.

[Shakeyhands]

Insite is NOT an intervention program. It is a place where drug addicts can go to shoot up drugs. There is no intervention at all, which is why there are so many objections. If they WERE intervening - we wouldn't be having this debate.

I could say the same about your protestations. What rational person would voluntarily and knowingly allow a person addicted to drugs to continue said conduct knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is. It boggles the mind that someone would actually try and suggest that people be voluntarily allowed to stay addicted.

I don't object for moral reasons. This isn't an issue of behaviour of the addicts that bothers me. They're addicted, their behaviour is a funciton of that. My objection is based on the grounds that places like Insite are acting as enablers to prolong a person's addiction to drugs, ignoring the impact these drugs have not only on the person who takes them, but on those around them. That includes any children they have and the community, who undoubtedly suffer from the crimes these addict commit to sustain their habit. Even then what bothers me more is not the crimes, but that we - as society - knowingly allow this to happen.

Addicts deserve better. They deserve a society that will take a stand and act to get them clean. What they don't deserve is a society that believes 'helping' means to give them a fresh needle and a place to shoot up so they remain addicted.

Wrong.

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/services/services

[cybercoma]

I could say the same about your protestations. What rational person would voluntarily and knowingly allow a person addicted to drugs to continue said conduct knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is.

I'm going to stop reading right here because you can't even get it right. I'm not "knowingly allow[ing] a person addicted to drugs to continue [to use] knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is." The vast majority of research shows that programs like InSite (which you conveniently ignore includes OnSite), NAOMI, and SALOME are the most effectively harm reduction strategies for drug addicts. It not only gets more people off drugs, but more people on these programs end up with jobs and stop engaging in criminal activity. So don't sit here and say that I'm the one that wants people to continue their conduct. I want effective programs that will help them. On the other hand, you continue to advocate for approaches that have proven not only ineffective, but in some cases harmful for users.

[cybercoma]

Wrong.

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/services/services

I get so tired of people arguing from a place where they're not even fully informed of the issues.

[huh]

I get so tired of people arguing from a place where they're not even fully informed of the issues.

Yes we all need to be more informed by the lobby on your side.. I dont care how you feel about this, if we believed in evolution and natural selection we would provide these people no support and either let them find their own way or perish, but no, you want to help them even if they wont help themselves. Ok, i am not totally against that, we do have some responsibility as a society to help those less fortunate, but tell me, who decides when we have done enough?

Who decides when the rich have paid enough taxes, or that the welfare recipients get enough money, or that single mom has had too many children? Do you think you should decide? Is it your ideology that should reign, everyone needs to be 'helped' no one is truly responsible for themselves? Is there some point at which we say no? Because for some of you there doesn't seem to be a line, how much tax should the rich pay..seventy five percent? I have zero doubt that at least a few here would be fine with that. At some point what you want is full blown socialism or communism.

We should help people, but not at the expense of consequences for bad and often repeatedly bad decisions. Why do you think you get to draw that lines?

Some of these realities are so obvious that i honestly believe most of your aren't all that intelligent.

Edited April 24, 2012 by huh