Maine's Governor Vetoes A Lifesaving Bill; tells heroin addicts to drop dead

[grumbler]

Oh, I guess I'll leave you to continue to construct fantasy land.

His world is to the real world as Kansas was to Oz. 

[crazy canuck]

Naloxone is not heroin and the governor needs to just look at all the other states where it is easier to access to see if there is a sense of normalcy around heroin use.

Just look at Europe.  First, they let people get heroine in controlled and safe place, apparently for health concerns.  They gave them needles, as we did for a short while in Vancouver.  Then they had to make sure they had easy access to anti-overdose medication.  Then they realize they have super-users who don't react to any kind of conventional therapy, including methadone, so they need to give them free heroine in the hope they will eventually cease using.

In my opinion, that is equivalent to giving free cigarettes to a lung cancer patient.  Or having hospitals with smoker's room, something we did away with a while ago over here.

Viper, do a little fact checking please.  Not only does Vancouver continue to have a needle exchange program but Vancouver also pioneered a safe injection site where addicts could take their drugs in a medically controlled environment.   Opposition was fierce.  They raised all the same sorts of arguments you are making.  And the opposition was dead wrong.  There was a significant drop in overdose deaths and a drop in drug usage (as the clinic assisted addicts to kick their habit).  As a result property crimes dropped and the surrounding neighborhood improved considerably.

As you may recall the Federal Conservatives tried to shut the place down and the Supreme Court of Canada decision preventing that move goes into great detail as to the merits of such programs.  I suggest you give it a read. 

[Jacob]

They gave them needles, as we did for a short while in Vancouver.  Then they had to make sure they had easy access to anti-overdose medication.  Then they realize they have super-users who don't react to any kind of conventional therapy, including methadone, so they need to give them free heroine in the hope they will eventually cease using.

I'm assuming you're speaking about some sort of town in Quebec named Vancouver, because the events you describe do not match anything that happened in Vancouver, BC (other than the existence - continued as CC notes - of a needle exchange program).

[viper37]

CC, death rate has fallen, but addiction rate has increased in Vancouver and Canada:
Vancouver Sun

About Insite, if you look at the 2013 report from BC Center for excellence in Hiv/Aids, you'll notice that incarceration related to heroin use had already started to fall before 2003, when Insite was opened.
Report
It increase after it opens and decreases later on, toward 2009 (figure 8).
The availability of heroin has actually increased, so that means more users of the drug.  Since the price on the street has remained stable, it means supply & demand are on balance.  It either means there was a reduction in offer to match the theorical lesser demand, but that would be falsified by previous figures, or, the demand increased at the same rate as the supply or nothing at all changed.

Figure 14 will show you the same pattern as figure 8, so the two appears to be linked (though I do not have conclusive data to evaluate this) and again, we can not trace a correlation downward with the presence of Insite.

The only thing we know for certain is that Insite contributed to a reduction death by overdose.  That is undeniable.  But I don't see it as a benefit since it means we keep these people, a drag on our society's finances alive longer.  It's like finding a way to make cigarettes less deadly, while keeping all the other negative effects on one's health and environment.

Figure 15 will reveal that crystal meth injection actually increased since Insite appeared, so we may see a shift in the demand for another product that has a better cost/benefit ratio for drug users.

Figure 21 is the percentage of population who stop using.  It drops after 2003, then comes on the rise again.  Hard to see a correlation here.  It could be that people are switching drugs, as we an increase in other drugs.

If we look at Statscan report on crime:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm
We see that since 2010 the BC situation is pretty much stable, but the crime severity index has actually increased
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal51a-eng.htm

Again, no noticeable effect from Insite on this front.



Now, for the US.
Here is a map showing increase in overdose deaths:
http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
Red means there is a statiscally significant increase.

Here you find a map where you can adjust your criteria:
http://lawatlas.org/query?dataset=laws-regulating-administration-of-naloxone
I have selected only "third party prescription authorized", which means not only doctors are allowed to prescribe it, but they give a standing order to prescribe it to the appropriate clientele.

I can not see a correlation with an increase in overdose deaths, but I agree that it is extremely limited since I only have one year at a time to evaluate the changes.  If I had easy access to 10-15 years of stats, it would be much easier to form an opinion on the subject.

If data were to convince me that offering any such medications or supervised injection sites would reduce general drug use, I would be convinced to change my mind on the subject.  Otherwise, I still think it's a bad idea to help addicts who won't quit.

[viper37]

They gave them needles, as we did for a short while in Vancouver.  Then they had to make sure they had easy access to anti-overdose medication.  Then they realize they have super-users who don't react to any kind of conventional therapy, including methadone, so they need to give them free heroine in the hope they will eventually cease using.

I'm assuming you're speaking about some sort of town in Quebec named Vancouver, because the events you describe do not match anything that happened in Vancouver, BC (other than the existence - continued as CC notes - of a needle exchange program).

Some European countries are now giving free heroin to addicts in the hope it will cure them because methadone is now ineffective.  Wait a few more years of Insite, a few more sites like this, and you will see the results of the policy.   What we know so far is that crime is not reduced, drug use is not reduced and market prices and availability are unchanged.

Death rate is down, but I'm not convinced it's such a good thing, as detailed above.  HIV spreading rates are down, it is good, however.
Maybe it's worth it just for that, to avoid contamination of other clienteles, but I still think we should tackle the problem at the source.

[Razgovory]

Which countries?

[Oexmelin]

But I don't see it as a benefit since it means we keep these people, a drag on our society's finances alive longer. 

You need to stop listening to your favorite fucking radio fascists.

[grumbler]

If the desired goal is simply to reduce use, as viper states, then poisoning all drugs seized and then releasing them back into the illegal distribution network would work.  Either the user gets scared and quits, or gets poisoned and dies.  Drug problem:  solved.  Sound good, viper?

[crazy canuck]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

[Ed Anger]

Too much Kanadian content in this thread.

[Barrister]

Too much Kanadian content in this thread.

[Monoriu]

Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.  It is expensive, ineffective, and there are very undesirable side effects like money flowing into the hands of criminal organisations around the world.  Drug prohibition has been given more than a fair chance to prove its worth.  It is time to try something new and take some risks.  Even if that something may not work.  Anything is better than sticking with prohibition which has proven not to work. 

[celedhring]

Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.

The dramatic decline
in syringe sharing among PWUD in
Vancouver can be largely attributed to
the expansion of harm reduction programs
in the city, with 39.6% of PWUD
reporting syringe borrowing in 1996 but
only 1.7% reporting syringe borrowing
in 2011.

If you are not concerned about bettering the health of the community then we don't really have much to talk about.

We have had similar programs over in Catalonia (sponsored by the regional government), and heroin-related emergencies have plunged 70% since the 1990s, when they were first introduced. As you say, those programs work.

They faced the same criticisms at first, that they "enabled" consumption, but the fact of the matter is that they improve the health and safety of the community. And they do it for non-users, too. Somebody injecting himself in a controlled room isn't doing it on the streets, isn't leaving behind an used syringe, gets exposed to medical and psychological help that might put him on a path to kick the habit, etc...

Even if you don't care for addicts, making them miserable people with miserable lives doesn't seem particularly conducive to public safety.

I also don't see how those programs are incompatible with habit reduction initiatives.

[Eddie Teach]

Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.  It is expensive, ineffective, and there are very undesirable side effects like money flowing into the hands of criminal organisations around the world.  Drug prohibition has been given more than a fair chance to prove its worth.  It is time to try something new and take some risks.  Even if that something may not work.  Anything is better than sticking with prohibition which has proven not to work.

[viper37]

But I don't see it as a benefit since it means we keep these people, a drag on our society's finances alive longer. 

You need to stop listening to your favorite fucking radio fascists.

which one would that be?  I am apparantly listening to so many fucking radio/media fascists these days, it's hard to keep track.  Would that be Tout le Monde en Parle defending pedos & attacking those who denounce them?  Would that be Guy A. insulting and denigrating the people of Quebec city?  Would that be Le Soleil and Le Devoir with their non factual stories on subjects I know?  Radio-Canada giving a mike to people who want to execute bankers?  Ah, I got it.  Le Journal de Québec, owned by the actual Parti Québécois leader.  That must be it. 

But you are probably right.  We should cut funding to schools&universities and instead offer free heroin to drug addicts, free&safe place to use their drugs, treat them like victims and absolutely do not seek to rehabilitate them because it is a secondary and worthless objective.

People make their choices, they are free to do so, but they must live with the consequences.  Drug users aren't forced to stick a needle in the arm or ingest it by any other means.  Just like nobody is forced to eat McD's 5 times a week.  Yet, in one case, if you don't change your habits, you won't receive medical treatment.

You won't get it out of mind that what you are proposing is perverse. We can't afford to take care of handicapped people decently, they need to rely on private charities and constantly fight against the system to maintain a decent standard of living, yet, drug users should be pampered.  What does a guy in wheelchair need to get some pity and decent care?  Have someone stick a needle in his arm too?