Author Topic: Vancouver Tries Free Heroin Program (Read 3414 times)

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #75 on:** March 15, 2005, 02:55:42 PM »

Mora I doubt anyone ever experimented with incarserating every junkey caught in the wild and have them sweat it out.

Junkies are to be nannied not to hurt thier emotions.

If the withdrawals are as bad as they claim, nobody will want to go through that many times.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #76 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:06:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
If the withdrawals are as bad as they claim, nobody will want to go through that many times.

It'd seem so on the surface. but if you believe it then it shows you don't have much contact with junkies or their way of looking at life. (not an insult. that's a good thing)

if they were able to actually take a reasonable look at life, what they get from their substance of choice, and what it costs them we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #77 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:09:26 PM »

But won't they get a moment of clarity after a month with no dope apathy?

mora · « **Reply #78 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:15:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Mora I doubt anyone ever experimented with incarserating every junkey caught in the wild and have them sweat it out.

Junkies are to be nannied not to hurt thier emotions.

If the withdrawals are as bad as they claim, nobody will want to go through that many times.

No but there are many researches made about the effectiveness of non-maintenance treatment programs and it's effectiveness has generally been around 5% to 10%.

Why would a junkie who is forced into a cold turkey treatment do any better than a person who has completed such a program voluntarily?

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #79 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:21:01 PM »

Because the junkeys don't have the backbone to follow through the cold turkey on thier own. Therefore they must be governed through the process. Rinse and repeat untill they get it out of the system.

I'm sure the voluntary cold-turkey methods were unsuccesful because the subjects broke under the pressure. As there was nothing to stop them from shooting up again, the detox failed automatically.

If you're in slammer under continues surveillance there's no way you can have a lapse.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #80 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:21:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
But won't they get a moment of clarity after a month with no dope apathy?

they were sober when they started, right? why would they make a better decision this time around?

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #81 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:24:19 PM »

Apathy: Maybe because by then they've seen the life and where it leads to.

Of course if a person is beyond repair there's no point to struggle. But many times I think it's just a matter of experimenting and seeking thrills. Before they know it they're addicted.

If someone has a compelling reason to _start_ taking drugs, no cold turkey or methadone will ever cure that. Maybe a few years in a mental institution would be a better cure for that kind of people.

SOB · « **Reply #82 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:24:35 PM »

I'm still confused as to where all of these solitary jail cells are coming from. Not to mention the medically-trained staff necessary to supervise.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #83 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:27:46 PM »

SOB maybe from the same cash fund the DEA agents and customs officers come today.

It's only a matter of choices. It's not like you don't have to take action on them somehow. You could aswell have said 'police officers? where are all those trained uniform cops coming from? bah let's forget it.'

mora · « **Reply #84 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:30:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Because the junkeys don't have the backbone to follow through the cold turkey on thier own. Therefore they must be governed through the process. Rinse and repeat untill they get it out of the system.

I'm sure the voluntary cold-turkey methods were unsuccesful because the subjects broke under the pressure. As there was nothing to stop them from shooting up again, the detox failed automatically.

If you're in slammer under continues surveillance there's no way you can have a lapse.

Those treatment programs last 90 days minimum and the patients must be drug free for the whole time, and they are tested freguently.

Sure they can shoot up, but then they would be out of the program. The success rate of 5%-10% is for those who have succesfully completed the program. Naturally a lot of people drop out.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #85 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:34:34 PM »

Mora do you really think that if they were forced to give drug tests and put to the circulation again and again, they'd still continue the use?

Or would they maybe start to think slowly after getting the 4th round, 5th round, 6th round.. Of course they could get desperate and OD in the end - which would also solve the problem effectively.

SOB · « **Reply #86 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:40:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
SOB maybe from the same cash fund the DEA agents and customs officers come today.

It's only a matter of choices. It's not like you don't have to take action on them somehow. You could aswell have said 'police officers? where are all those trained uniform cops coming from? bah let's forget it.'

So, then, we eliminate the DEA and customs, and build a bunch of jail cells across the U.S.? Or are you suggesting there's some magical pool of money that the DEA and customs have sitting around for a rainy day?

mora · « **Reply #87 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:53:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Mora do you really think that if they were forced to give drug tests and put to the circulation again and again, they'd still continue the use?

Or would they maybe start to think slowly after getting the 4th round, 5th round, 6th round.. Of course they could get desperate and OD in the end - which would also solve the problem effectively.

That's purely hypothetical and isn't something that is done anywhere and probably ever will. The only way to evaluate it's effectiveness is guessing.

If you are suggesting a police state, why not shoot them at the first place? That would be something that could be done without extraordinary resources.

How would this control network and jails to be funded? Not by me, thank you. It would be many times more expensive than the junkies will ever be. That would never happen in a democratic society at least.

parker00 · « **Reply #88 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:59:17 PM »

Siaf let's get this straight- put all addicts in SC but let the rapists and murders (the other people in prison) roam the yard. Is that what you are saying? Or put everyone in SC?

Quote

Addicts are weak individuals who can't survive in a normal society without drugs. That's why they fail 90% of the time to get clean no matter how much time or money you use

Where the hell did you get those numbers or is this proof that your talking out your prettythang?

Quote

They're weak from the head, not by physics. They're weak as individuals because they took drugs for a reason.

How do know why they started? I see you think you know everything but really how can you say what you would do if you grew up in a different situation then you did. Was your mom and dad junkies? did you get beat everynight for just being there? did you grow up in a neighborhood that had drugs on every corner and nothing you did could get you away from it. How can you speak to what you would do if you have never been in that kind of situation? Some (not all) of these people probably have never heard the words "I love you" from someone. Never had someone to care what happen to them or if they lived or died. Now i'm not sticking up for what they do or what Canada is doing but for you to come out here and make blanket statements about all junkies makes you the biggest prettythang on this board. Although i've had somewhat of a drug problem in the past i have never even seen heroin so i'm not speaking from past experiences. I just don't understand how someone like you can lay judgement to everyone who does drugs. So does this mean you will be bringing your wife down to the local prison for her Solitary Confinement? Or does that just go for certain addicts. You live with an "addict" and you believe like this. I would think that is pretty weak on your part for not taking control of the problem sooner, you hypocrite!!!

Nash · « **Reply #89 on:** March 15, 2005, 03:59:21 PM »

I'm just wondering how you'd go about rounding up the addicts to throw in jail.

Walk down the street with a dixie cup and a drug test kit? Face it, it's already illegal to do drugs. You can already get thrown in jail for it. Right now.

But it aint happenin'....

What would be different in siaf-fantasyland?