Most vile action done by a governor since I don't know how long, probably have to go back to the Jim Crow South.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/04/22/better-dead-than-addicted-says-maines-governor-while-vetoing-a-lifesaving-bill/#770dcd7d4130
Quote
APR 22, 2016 @ 05:16 AM
Better Dead Than Addicted? Maine's Governor Vetoes A Lifesaving Bill
Jacob Sullum
I cover the war on drugs from a conscientious objector's perspective.
This week Maine Gov. Paul LePage vetoed a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense the opioid antagonist naloxone (a.k.a. Narcan), which reverses heroin overdoses that might otherwise be fatal, without a prescription. The Maine legislature unanimously approved the bill, which copies the policy of about 30 other states, because making naloxone more easily available is a commonsense harm reduction measure that can save the lives of heroin users who are not ready to stop using the drug. As far as LePage is concerned, that is precisely the problem:
Quote
Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.
In other words, if the aim is discouraging heroin use, making the habit less deadly is counterproductive. More generally, prohibitionists want drugs to be as dangerous as possible, the better to deter consumption. Although LePage states that appalling argument more explicitly than most drug warriors do, it is fundamental to the way prohibition works.
There is nothing inherently deadly about heroin. People can consume it regularly for years without suffering any serious bodily damage, provided they follow sanitary injection practices, take appropriate doses, and do not mix it with other depressants. Prohibition makes heroin needlessly dangerous by encouraging injection (the most efficient method to consume an artificially expensive drug), making clean needles hard to come by and risky to possess (by treating them as illegal drug paraphernalia), creating a black market in which purity and potency are unpredictable, and discouraging honest advice about how to minimize the drug's hazards.
Although such harm-amplifying effects are usually described as unintended consequences of prohibition, LePage's attitude toward naloxone shows that from his perspective they are desirable. The same impulse underlies opposition to needle exchange programs, supervised injection rooms, and prescriptions of pharmaceutical-quality heroin to addicts. Like readily available naloxone, these measures make addicts less likely to die, possibly at the cost of making them less likely to quit. LePage considers that risk unacceptable. Better dead than addicted.
You know this headline is superretarded, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2016, 01:50:51 AM
You know this headline is superretarded, right?
It's 100% true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6RbNhmmpRo
LePage seems Trumpian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage
Regardless, he has an interesting biography.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 24, 2016, 07:34:24 PM
LePage seems Trumpian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage
Regardless, he has an interesting biography.
I believe he was the 2nd governor to endorse Trump
I dunno about Maine. Perhaps it's different than Alberta.
But here we have this huge problem with fentanyl. It's gets sold as heroin, or is perhaps mixed with heroin. But instead it contains fentanyl, which is massively more addictive, and fatal. So it just plain kills.
And that's not to mention W-18, which is just hitting the streets.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/street-drug-w18-delay-1.3550642
100X powerful as fentanyl. Dear Lord.
Once Bernie is elected, you'll be able to buy any drug and its antidote in the pharmacy without a prescription.
So now Bernie is a radical libertarian?
In Bernie's America, you won't "buy" anything. You will receive your allotment of drugs and antidotes, and be grateful for it.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 24, 2016, 07:34:24 PM
LePage seems Trumpian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage
Regardless, he has an interesting biography.
I thought Maine was one of the true blue states, how come do they elect this retrograde?
This bit was...funny. :lol:
QuoteLePage has two children, Paul and Lauren, with his second wife, Ann DeRosby, whom he married in 1984. Since 2002, his household has also included a young man from Jamaica, Devon Raymond, Jr. (born 1985). LePage calls Raymond his adopted son, although adoption paperwork was not filed. LePage met Raymond in Jamaica through Raymond's father, who caddied for LePage during a vacation there.
Quote from: The Larch on April 25, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 24, 2016, 07:34:24 PM
LePage seems Trumpian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage
Regardless, he has an interesting biography.
I thought Maine was one of the true blue states, how come do they elect this retrograde?
This bit was...funny. :lol:
QuoteLePage has two children, Paul and Lauren, with his second wife, Ann DeRosby, whom he married in 1984. Since 2002, his household has also included a young man from Jamaica, Devon Raymond, Jr. (born 1985). LePage calls Raymond his adopted son, although adoption paperwork was not filed. LePage met Raymond in Jamaica through Raymond's father, who caddied for LePage during a vacation there.
IIRC the vote was split between a democrat and a centerist or leftist independent.
Quote
Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Don't post drunk, is my advice.
Sober up and try again, in English next time.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Don't post drunk, is my advice.
Sober up and try again, in English next time.
Drunk posting can enhance the experience for other posters though.
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
Quote
Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Uhm. No.
NO!
Quote from: Norgy on April 25, 2016, 02:09:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
Quote
Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Uhm. No.
NO!
Why? You don't make a conscious choice of using heroin? Someone forces you to consume it in the vast majority of cases, until you become addicted to the stuff?
I'm all for helping people quit the habbit. Not maintain them on it.
Going after drug trafickers does not do much. It has to be done, but it's not a very effective policy. Demand affects supply, not the other way around.
Just because you market something does not mean someone will buy it. However, if there's no one to buy your product, you sell something else.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
I don't see the problem. You make a conscious choice of using a dangerous product, and you do so because you know you can be easily revived. Making it freely accessible would not only enhance drug users experience but convince others to try it who would not normally do it.
Don't post drunk, is my advice.
Sober up and try again, in English next time.
I am sober. I don't see how helping drug user use more drugs is beneficial for the society. Especially in places where the state will pay for such sill things and not cover other medications.
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2016, 02:50:28 PM
Why? You don't make a conscious choice of using heroin? Someone forces you to consume it in the vast majority of cases, until you become addicted to the stuff?
Very, very few people just wake up one day and say "you know, I think I'm going to try smack today".
There's hundreds of different routes to addiction. Maybe someone was hurt, got addicted to prescription painkillers, then couldn't get them anymore, and turned to heroin?
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2016, 03:26:20 PM
Very, very few people just wake up one day and say "you know, I think I'm going to try smack today".
There's hundreds of different routes to addiction. Maybe someone was hurt, got addicted to prescription painkillers, then couldn't get them anymore, and turned to heroin?
I'm also pretty sure that people rarely consider the availability of an antidote for a potential overdose when the take drugs.
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2016, 03:40:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2016, 03:26:20 PM
Very, very few people just wake up one day and say "you know, I think I'm going to try smack today".
There's hundreds of different routes to addiction. Maybe someone was hurt, got addicted to prescription painkillers, then couldn't get them anymore, and turned to heroin?
I'm also pretty sure that people rarely consider the availability of an antidote for a potential overdose when the take drugs.
Actually I'm pretty sure that addicts are painfully aware of the risk of an overdose. There were 272 overdose deaths in Alberta last year.
It just doesn't stop them.
No comments about his Jamaican manservant/souvenir? :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2016, 03:51:24 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure that addicts are painfully aware of the risk of an overdose. There were 272 overdose deaths in Alberta last year.
It just doesn't stop them.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the availability or lack of same of an overdose antidote does not significantly alter the decision for addicts to shoot up.
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2016, 03:51:24 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure that addicts are painfully aware of the risk of an overdose. There were 272 overdose deaths in Alberta last year.
It just doesn't stop them.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the availability or lack of same of an overdose antidote does not significantly alter the decision for addicts to shoot up.
Indeed.
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2016, 03:26:20 PM
There's hundreds of different routes to addiction. Maybe someone was hurt, got addicted to prescription painkillers, then couldn't get them anymore, and turned to heroin?
Sure. But how is it helping that we help them maintain their habit? They make that choice for themselves, eventually. Not from day 1, but eventually, somewhere down the road, once they decide smoking pot is not for them, not enough of a buzz.
They want it for different reasons, but it is still a voluntary gesture. They could seek help. There's tons of help everywhere for drug abuse. If there's not enough help, or if it's not good enough, then let's improve on it. I don't know what it takes to treat drug addiction. But I do know that encouraging an habit is not a way to make it go away.
You don't offer free cigarettes to people trying to quit smoking. Some doctors even refuse to treat their patients who don't want to stop smoking. Some doctors don't want to see patients that do not lose weight on command and refuse surgery.
Why should we act differently when it's heroine? Giving them free heroine, a free place to shoot themselves, a free nurse to take care of them while other sick people need private insurances to pay for a private nurse?
It seems to me there are people more worthy of saving than someone who refuses to change. A smoker who refuses to quit smoking won't get a surgery to remove a lung. Officially, they will not refuse it. Unofficially, he gets pushed to the bottom of the waiting list if they don't stop. If you're fat and need medical treatment, your doc will tell you to lose weight. If you can't, he asks of you to go into gastric surgery and if you refuse, you get to the bottom list of whatever treatment you need.
Again, why make things different for drug users? Why the need to cuddle them in their habit? We have limited resources, not infinite ones. I think it's a waste of those limited resources.
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2016, 02:01:55 AM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Isn't Narcan available in some places without a prescription? I could swear it's that way with West Virginia. The big issue in WV is whether to require state cops to carry it in their cruisers.
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2016, 02:01:55 AM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Oh, I guess I'll leave you to continue to construct fantasy land.
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2016, 01:47:29 PM
Isn't Narcan available in some places without a prescription? I could swear it's that way with West Virginia. The big issue in WV is whether to require state cops to carry it in their cruisers.
Yeah, that's what the Maine bill was about, and the story says there are similar provisions in place in 30 states.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2016, 01:53:14 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2016, 02:01:55 AM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
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).
CC, death rate has fallen, but addiction rate has increased in Vancouver and Canada:
Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Part+Heroin+addiction+rise+among+young+drug+users+with+video/9894355/story.html)
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 (http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/news/releases/war_on_drugs_failing_to_limit_drug_use.pdf)
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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
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.
Which countries?
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 04:23:43 PM
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.
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?
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
Too much Kanadian content in this thread.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 05:38:39 PM
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2016, 01:32:37 AM
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.
:cheers:
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2016, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2016, 04:23:43 PM
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?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2016, 01:32:37 AM
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.
the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 05:38:39 PM
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
the health of drug users is of no concern to me. We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers. As long as there is demand, there will be offer.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2016, 01:32:37 AM
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.
the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.
That is a fake problem.
We do that already. To the extent the problem potentially exists, it already exists, and the current solution is clearly a failure.
So you are either claiming that
A) There is this problem that would exist if the proposed solution was put in place, but that is clearly not true since the nature of the problem you state already exists, or
B) The problem currently exists, and the current system is a good solution and the change would jeopardize that problem. But that is clearly not true, since the current implementation has been a spectacular failure.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 05:38:39 PM
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
the health of drug users is of no concern to me. We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers. As long as there is demand, there will be offer.
Your tax dollars are going to be what pays for the treatment of the increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis B/C.
I think the right approach is to promote hugs, not drugs.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 08:50:40 AM
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.
:lmfao:
Worst strawman ever.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 08:55:57 AM
the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.
The problem with prohibition is that it benefits only two groups:
(1) the thugs who want to have an excuse to increase their profit margin, and
(2) the Puritans who are desperate for someone to feel superior to and feel moral outrage over.
There will always be crooks and Puritans, but society should not cater to their physical and intellectual laziness, respectively.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
the health of drug users is of no concern to me. We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers. As long as there is demand, there will be offer.
At least you are somewhat honest and don't pretend to be charitable. Honest enough to answer my question about poisoning drugs, though?
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 05:38:39 PM
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
the health of drug users is of no concern to me. We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers. As long as there is demand, there will be offer.
Even if you were thinking only about yourself in a completely mercenary way your position makes no sense. Unless you actually support the hypothetical Grumbler gave you, government expenditures would dramatically increase. Reducing cost was the main reason governments were initially persuaded to try harm reduction strategies. As those strategies began to work (and costs were reduced) governments allowed more harm reduction strategies. It has been a virtuous cycle benefiting both addicts and, for people who care only about themselves, the tax payer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2016, 09:33:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2016, 05:38:39 PM
Viper, take a closer look at the study you rely upon for your conclusions.
QuoteThe 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.
the health of drug users is of no concern to me. We should be way tougher on the users than on the sellers. As long as there is demand, there will be offer.
Even if you were thinking only about yourself in a completely mercenary way your position makes no sense. Unless you actually support the hypothetical Grumbler gave you, government expenditures would dramatically increase. Reducing cost was the main reason governments were initially persuaded to try harm reduction strategies. As those strategies began to work (and costs were reduced) governments allowed more harm reduction strategies. It has been a virtuous cycle benefiting both addicts and, for people who care only about themselves, the tax payer.
But it doesn't punish the people who need punishing.
It is the same argument you see when nominally pro-life people oppose birth control. The point is not to decrease the problem, the point is to make sure the sluts/druggies are properly punished for their actions.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2016, 01:32:37 AM
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.
the problem with legalization is that unless you legalize just about everything, there will always be some illegal product that has some pull over potential and actual drug users.
That is a fake problem.
We do that already. To the extent the problem potentially exists, it already exists, and the current solution is clearly a failure.
So you are either claiming that
A) There is this problem that would exist if the proposed solution was put in place, but that is clearly not true since the nature of the problem you state already exists, or
B) The problem currently exists, and the current system is a good solution and the change would jeopardize that problem. But that is clearly not true, since the current implementation has been a spectacular failure.
What I'm saying is drug legalization in the optics of reducing the money flowing into organize crime coffers is not a valid solution.
You had prohibitions on alcohol at some point in your history. Yes, organized crime made a fuckton of money on it. But they also made money on heroin at the same time, gambling and prostitution.
When prohibition was lifted, organized crime did no go bankrupt.
Currently, some states have legalized marijuana. Organized crime is not going bankrupt.
There is no prohibition in Canada, yet organize crime makes a fuckton of money from tobacoo and illegal alcohol sales. There's always a need for cheaper or stronger product.
When marijuana will be legalized in Canada, there will still be illegitimate sellers of the products. And drug users will still use other illegal products.
Now, let's say that at some point we also legalize cocaine, because it's just strong, white coffee and there's nothing harmful in it, unlike marijuana and alcohol those really dangerous products that we legalized at some point (that will be the argument we will hear then, as we hear now about alcohol vs marijuana). And we might even include heroin/other opioids because it's just a medicinal product after all.
I don't think organized crime will go bankrupt then. There will always be some product that we do not legalize that will attract users. Something that gives them a bigger thrill, or something that will sells for cheaper (stolen or detaxed products).
So really, the whole "war on drugs is not working" is true, but I don't see how we can escape it in any way. As such, it should not be a valid argument for legalization, one way or another.
So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.
Got it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2016, 09:39:25 AM
So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.
We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 10:05:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2016, 09:39:25 AM
So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.
We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.
That is not what your claim was, and is, on the face of it, clearly false.
Taking away sources of income will decrease their power, wealth and influence by definition. There is zero debate about that.
This is basic math. If they have a certain amount of wealth, and you take some of that away, they will have less. It isn't complicated.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2016, 09:39:25 AM
So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.
Got it.
In that world, if it is not pure white, it is pitch black by definition. There actually are people that think this way, as we can see right here.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 10:05:35 AM
We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.
Agreed, but no one is arguing that position, so your point is moot.
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 10:05:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2016, 09:39:25 AM
So unless organized crime goes away, we should not bother to enact any changes that we know will decrease their power, wealth, and influence.
We should not enact any changes that wee know will not decrease their power, wealth and influence while having detrimental effect to public finances and/or health.
:hmm: Hard to disagree with a stance like that.