The Man Who Opened a Store Selling Heroin and Cocaine Has Died From an Overdose

[CdnFox]

Jerry Martin, 51, opened the store in Vancouver because he wanted to give people access to clean drugs and challenge Canadian drug laws.

Jerry Martin died in Vancouver on Friday, a few days after he was hospitalized due to a suspected fentanyl overdose, according to his partner Krista Thomas. He was 51 years old. 

Although Martin survived the overdose initially, he remained unresponsive in hospital and his family eventually decided to take him off life support. He previously told VICE News he had been addicted to cocaine and had been homeless for much of his youth. 

“Jerry believed that people were self-medicating their trauma and so long as they were doing that, they needed a safe supply to do it,” Thomas said. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b7p3/jerry-martin-man-opened-cocaine-heroin-dead

 

Sigh. This is your brain on drugs.  This is your brain on "CLEAN" drugs.   Any questions?

 

You can't solve people's problems by enabling them.

[herbie]

He purported his store was to provide clean drugs.

He dies from fentanyl overdose. So much for trusting free enterprise....
a couple days after weed stores found selling vape juice containing benxodiazepines.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, herbie said:

He purported his store was to provide clean drugs.

He dies from fentanyl overdose. So much for trusting free enterprise....
a couple days after weed stores found selling vape juice containing benxodiazepines.

Turns out just because a druggie has access to clean supplies doesn't mean he'll use them.

This guy was very educated about the dangers. had access to clean supply, it made no difference.  We already knew from the data the idea of supplying 'safe drugs'  is an utter failure but this REALLY hammers it home.

[herbie]

How you conclude safe drug supply is a failure from pointing out the very human failure of the guy you refer to is odd. And spew BS about 'data' that proves it.

You joining the club like the woman I know who told me she'd never ever go to the Pot Store for her weed "because you never know what the government is putting in the stuff" ?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

How you conclude safe drug supply is a failure from pointing out the very human failure of the guy you refer to is odd. And spew BS about 'data' that proves it.

 

He HAD safe drug supplies, and was fully educated on the dangers of not using those supplies.

He ded.

You'd have to be a ****** NOT to realize that is pretty strong evidence that even if people have save supplies they'll still use dangerous products and die.

IF death isn't sufficient proof they'll die then you don't need data, you need a therapist.

[Moonbox]

That's not strong evidence.  That's "one guy".  

If one guy is strong evidence, then we wouldn't have so many problems legislating firearms in Canada and the US.  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's not strong evidence.  That's "one guy".  

 

It absolutely is strong evidence. It's the poster boy for the entire argument. If a guy who has the best access and the best education and the most reason in the world to use safe supply  can't do it - then obviously others aren't either.

Now - i could point to the statistics which very clearly show where safe supply is being tried it's failing and the same thing is happening - but when i post real world facts it seems to upset Herbie.

"safe supply" is an utter and complete failure.  It is not the solution. And while govt's are dicking around with it people are dying at faster and faster rates.

[herbie]

Especially if the ONE GUY did not use his safe drug supply to overdose.

You want "data"? Use some actual data... 1 to 1.8% of overdoses are from 'normal' ie 'safe' drug use... like they were in the pre-fentanyl old days. The argument against safe supply uses total overdoses and implies it's from safe drug sources when 98% isn't.

[Moonbox]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It absolutely is strong evidence. It's the poster boy for the entire argument. If a guy who has the best access and the best education and the most reason in the world to use safe supply  can't do it - then obviously others aren't either.

No, it's a poster-boy, as you say.  It's something for you to point and say, "See?!" 

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Now - i could point to the statistics which very clearly show where safe supply is being tried it's failing and the same thing is happening - but when i post real world facts it seems to upset Herbie.

Well if you have statistics, then present that with this case.  One guy is one guy.  It's evidence, sure, but one example in a crisis millions are dealing with isn't telling us much.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

No, it's a poster-boy, as you say.  It's something for you to point and say, "See?!" 

 

Yes - evidence is something people point to and say "see?"  The correct response is "ahh yes, i see that and understand".' The incorrect response is "I prefer my ideology over facts so i'm going to deny that it really is evidence despite it clearly being so".

Quote

Well if you have statistics, then present that with this case.  One guy is one guy.  It's evidence, sure, but one example in a crisis millions are dealing with isn't telling us much.  

I already did so in our previous thread about 'safe supply'.  It doesn't work.  The druggies take the 'safe' stuff and sell it off to buy the 'good stuff' and wind up just as dead. (TL/DR version).  The death rate remains the same or climbs even when you're directly referring to areas that offer safe supply.

You can go look up that thread or do a couple of websearches - But i have a suspicion that no matter WHAT the data says you'll ignore it in favor of your ideology.

This case proves that bad guys just can't help themselves and safe supply won't save them.  Might save a handful but it'll kill more, and other people wind up getting hooked on the 'safer' drugs.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You can go look up that thread or do a couple of websearches - But i have a suspicion that no matter WHAT the data says you'll ignore it in favor of your ideology.

I don't really have an opinion on this one.  I've never been particularly sympathetic to addicts, and it's not a subject I'm super interested in.  One person's overdose, however, is not "strong evidence".  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

This case proves that bad guys just can't help themselves and safe supply won't save them.  Might save a handful but it'll kill more, and other people wind up getting hooked on the 'safer' drugs.

No, it proves that one guy couldn't help himself.   That's it.  Beyond that, we're just talking about your ideology.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I don't really have an opinion on this one.  I've never been particularly sympathetic to addicts, and it's not a subject I'm super interested in.  One person's overdose, however, is not "strong evidence".  

Well i gave you the short version - the slightly less short but still pretty short version is that a reporter spent about a year digging into this, speaking to all kinds of addicts and to the cops and to the drug dispensers etc etc. and of course to first responders and so on.

What the druggies do is get the cheap/free "Safe" drugs - but they don't find the high to be as potent. So they sell them dirt cheap to others who aren't really addicts (school kids, etc) and put the money towards harder drugs. The impact on overdoses has been about zero, possibly into the negatives for various reasons.

 

And yes, this is absolutely 'strong evidence' that drug users will not switch just because there is a 'safe' alternative.  IF ANY of them could - it would be this guy. And he couldn't.

So if the most likely guy in the world who had every reason  TO do it and had the easiest access to the safe stuff COULD NOT do it and turned to the harder drugs, then YES - that ABSOLUTELY is strong evidence that others are not going to be successful at it either, certainly not in any significant numbers.

Sorry - doesn't matter that it's 'one guy'. If one guy jumps off a cliff, flaps his arms and goes splat at the bottom, it's pretty strong evidence that flapping your arms isn't going to generate sufficient lift to let you fly  

[Moonbox]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So if the most likely guy in the world who had every reason  TO do it and had the easiest access to the safe stuff COULD NOT do it and turned to the harder drugs, then YES - that ABSOLUTELY is strong evidence that others are not going to be successful at it either, certainly not in any significant numbers.

As evidence, it suggests that there are others who will similarly fail, but offers no indication of how many people it might save/help, which is the other side of the equation.  

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - doesn't matter that it's 'one guy'. If one guy jumps off a cliff, flaps his arms and goes splat at the bottom, it's pretty strong evidence that flapping your arms isn't going to generate sufficient lift to let you fly  

This is a poor metaphor, and I hope even you know this.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

As evidence, it suggests that there are others who will similarly fail, but offers no indication of how many people it might save/help, which is the other side of the equation. 

No precise numbers, of course. You are correct as far as that goes. It's reasonable to believe there must be at least one person out there who it helps. It is strong evidence however that the program will be ineffective. Someone who has every reason to succeed will fail it is reasonable to assume that people with less motivation and opportunity will, by and large, fail. So while the program may help one or two people here and there the evidence strongly suggests that it will not succeed overall. Which means it's a waste of money.

Of course, strongly suggesting is not absolute proof. So it is possible. It seems very unlikely in light of that evidence. When you add the other evidence of what's actually been happening during these trials to that it is crystal clear that there is a very very very low probability of this working even with tweaking.

 

It's just not the solution.

 

 

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No precise numbers, of course. You are correct as far as that goes. It's reasonable to believe there must be at least one person out there who it helps. It is strong evidence however that the program will be ineffective.

It's not, because if I can find one person that the program saved, then your evidence is countered. 

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Someone who has every reason to succeed will fail it is reasonable to assume that people with less motivation and opportunity will, by and large, fail.

You don't know what his situation really was - what was going on in his head, what his genetics were etc.  

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Of course, strongly suggesting is not absolute proof. So it is possible. It seems very unlikely in light of that evidence. When you add the other evidence of what's actually been happening during these trials to that it is crystal clear that there is a very very very low probability of this working even with tweaking.

I don't think this individual story tells us much at all.  It may be clear warning sign, or it may be an unlucky outcome. 

[WestCanMan]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:16 PM, herbie said:

You joining the club like the woman I know who told me she'd never ever go to the Pot Store for her weed "because you never know what the government is putting in the stuff" ?

If she said that in 2019 I woulda said she was crazy. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's not, because if I can find one person that the program saved, then your evidence is countered. 

Not in the slightest.  All that would demonstrate is that the failure rate isn't 100 percent. But what we would still know is that in the BEST case scenario it's not effective.

Quote

You don't know what his situation really was - what was going on in his head, what his genetics were etc.  

We don't need to. Every addict (or living person) will have things going on in their head etc. The idea was that safe supply would prevent deaths and all you're telling me is that there are reasons why that doesn't work very well.  Ok, sure.  but the issue is that it doesn't work very well.

 

Quote

I don't think this individual story tells us much at all.  It may be clear warning sign, or it may be an unlucky outcome. 

It tells quite a bit. It's not completely definitive on it's own but it's a strong indication that the concept doesn't work well. When added to the other stats its pretty clear it REALLY doesn't work.

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Not in the slightest.  All that would demonstrate is that the failure rate isn't 100 percent. But what we would still know is that in the BEST case scenario it's not effective.

That doesn't make sense.  The best case scenario would be the success, rather than the failure.  You're not going to be a proper judge of which cases were the most/least hopeful. 

You're leaping to conclusions.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That doesn't make sense.  The best case scenario would be the success, rather than the failure. 

That's the best outcome, not the best case. This guy was literally the best - as good as it gets. Strong support network, fully educated and passionately believing in the principle, completely aware of the dangers, unfettered access to clean choices. It just doesn't get better than that.

And it failed.

So its very questionable it's going to do a lot better in less favorable conditions.

Quote

You're leaping to conclusions.

There's no leap involved.  Even with the perfect candidate it didn't work.  Real world experiences are showing it's not making a difference.  There is NO reason whatsoever to believe this is ever going to work.

These are observable results.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/toxic-drug-deaths-bc-1000-2023-numbers-coroners-service-1.6881561

When drug addicts are given access to 'safe' drugs - they will sell them off to buy the "better" unsafe drugs that give them the better high.

These are NOT people noted for making good life choices, and the whole program hinged on that. 

It is just not a solution.

 

 

[Aristides]

More than ever, drug use is Russian Roulette.

[Moonbox]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's the best outcome, not the best case. This guy was literally the best - as good as it gets. Strong support network, fully educated and passionately believing in the principle, completely aware of the dangers, unfettered access to clean choices. It just doesn't get better than that.

The outcome suggests he wasn't the best case.  There are people that the program actually helps and sometimes even save from addiction, so you need to explain why that is, unless you're saying it's dumb luck?  

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

These are observable results.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/toxic-drug-deaths-bc-1000-2023-numbers-coroners-service-1.6881561

These are the obvious results of increasing amounts of fentanyl and carfentanyl in the illicit drug trade.  This article doesn't support your point.  

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The outcome suggests he wasn't the best case.

He was the absolute best case.  The outcome suggests that it's an ineffective model.

If a tiny light weight person jumps out of a plane with a small umbrella and they go splat - the conclusion is that umbrellas make bad parachutes, not that the user was insufficiently bouncy

He was as good as it gets - and it still didn't work.

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He was the absolute best case.  The outcome suggests that it's an ineffective model.

It could indicate that, but then you have to look at the other outcomes (the good ones) and explain why they turned out better than him.  Either he was not, in fact, the best case, or there was some other factor or dumb luck that lead to the poorest outcome.  Whatever the answer, your conclusion has obvious holes in it.  

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If a tiny light weight person jumps out of a plane with a small umbrella and they go splat - the conclusion is that umbrellas make bad parachutes, not that the user was insufficiently bouncy

Basic physics are not good metaphors for socio-economic and/or mental health issues.  This should go without saying.    

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It could indicate that, but then you have to look at the other outcomes (the good ones) and explain why they turned out better than him.  Either he was not, in fact, the best case, or there was some other factor or dumb luck that lead to the poorest outcome.  Whatever the answer, your conclusion has obvious holes in it.  

Well, lets keep it real here - i said it was 'strong evidence' - claiming that i'm stating it as an absolute is not actually what i said    So there is room for additional data to be presented,

But - further information would not change the fact that he is the ideal candidate.  All it would suggest is that there are other factors which cannot be controlled for that make the out come less likely.

And that's still going to be even MORE of the case with others who aren't ideal.

as i have said many times - not definitive but very strong evidence that the original premise is flawed and the model doesn't work very well.

And that seems to be supported strongliy by the results in the field so far.

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Basic physics are not good metaphors for socio-economic and/or mental health issues. 

But they're EXCELLENT for demonstrating how to address observed results.  And that's what we're doing here.   So sucks to be you

Sorry bud, you're just not in the right here. This IS in fact evidence of a serious flaw in the model, it is not the ONLY evidence, and this concept sin't working. And scientific observation is the same whether it's social, biomeidcal or physics related. THAT should have been what didn't need saying.

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well, lets keep it real here - i said it was 'strong evidence' - claiming that i'm stating it as an absolute is not actually what i said    So there is room for additional data to be presented,

Nobody talks about socio-economic and mental health issues as absolute.  Strong-evidence is about as good as you'll get, and this ain't it.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

But they're EXCELLENT for demonstrating how to address observed results.  And that's what we're doing here.   So sucks to be you

No, what we're doing here is addressing how lazy metaphors hurt your point, rather than help it.  Comparing wildly varying human behavior to the immutable laws of physics is about as lame as metaphors get.