Author Topic: Vancouver Tries Free Heroin Program (Read 3419 times)

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #195 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:05:18 AM »

Me anti-gun? ROFL! I'm anti anarchy.

I enjoy shooting as much as anyone else. I'm only against uncontrolled distribution of weapons. Every carry permit holder should go through a background check and any serious criminal history should automatically mean refusal of permit. If a person has a violent history, he should never be allowed to legally buy a weapon. Same goes to junkies and other people who are not mentally fit to take responsibility of themselves, let alone firearms.

lazs2 · « **Reply #196 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:15:14 AM »

so... there is nothing in the way that the U.S. controls firearms that you disagree with?

lazs

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #197 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:54:27 AM »

Lazs2 I don't even know your current system well enough to seriously disagree with it. If guns are controlled in a way which stops them from ending to wrong hands (as well as humanly possible) then it's ok with me.

Maverick · « **Reply #198 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:02:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Me anti-gun? ROFL! I'm anti anarchy.

I enjoy shooting as much as anyone else. I'm only against uncontrolled distribution of weapons. Every carry permit holder should go through a background check and any serious criminal history should automatically mean refusal of permit. If a person has a violent history, he should never be allowed to legally buy a weapon. Same goes to junkies and other people who are not mentally fit to take responsibility of themselves, let alone firearms.

FYI,

For a CCW permit to be granted those checks are already done. It is currently against the law in all 50 states for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm, of any type. It is also a violation of Federal law for a person under the influence of narcotics, illegal drugs to possess or purchase a firearm. It is also illegal for a dealer to sell a firearm to a person like those I listed above.

Skydancer · « **Reply #199 on:** March 21, 2005, 12:25:01 PM »

Hey this is a thread about Drugs. Not Guns! how about discussing gun control elsewhere? Just an idea. Mind you nearly every thread that Lazs gets involved in comes round to those pesky guns anyhow!

-dead- · « **Reply #200 on:** March 21, 2005, 12:43:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
I think that only China does that, and just for show purposes. I don't think they have any statistics available

China only executes the drug traffickers (as does most of the region: Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan & Thailand) and it hasn't helped a bit. In fact drug use is on the rise: an eight-fold increase over the last decade. Much the same as the net result of the outstandingly expensive War on Drugs: heroin is cheaper and more available than ever before.

BTW on Chinese Executions: Until 1996, execution in China was always by shooting - and often public. They now use lethal injections too and at prisons. Unless it's the SAR in which case there is no death penalty.

All in all the Vancouver trial seems like a sensible avenue of inquiry: you'll never get rid of drugs or drug users, so perhaps trying to reduce the crime associated with it by reducing the cost of the drugs is the way to go.

Arresting heroin addicts for drugs and the crimes many need to do to fund their habit is no doubt several magnitudes more expensive giving them free heroin, and all in all a big waste of police & correctional services' time and resources.

Will it increase the number of drug addicts? I think it's unlikely, if the government involved starts on a course of offering honest, believable information about both the pros and cons of drugs.
If it does we can take some solace in the following:
a) It's a personal choice of the individuals involved.
b) It'd have to increase the number of users several-fold before it starts to work out more expensive than the present system.
c) One can always go back to the present system.

bustr · « **Reply #201 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:10:02 PM »

Maybe I can distill this to the core issue.

Leaving human beings to their own devices in life is trusting a very imperfict being to act other than in it's own best interests. Siaf is afraid of anarchy. Anarchy being human's acting in unpredicatable manners that are detrimental to his life and by implication societies. Laz embraces the right of each individual to live and suffer the consiquences of freely making choices while society at large understands and accepts the same for each individual member. This being one of the foundation stones of our United States Constitution.

Siaf wants the state to insure the indentification and control of all it's members who are deemed unfit by the state to participate in the freedoms all humans are granted from birth by the creator. Laz wants the state to protect the creator given rights by leaving the people alone and punish\control only those who violate the freedoms and rights of the people.

From Siaf's perspective we are essentially crazy because we don't have a responsible overseeing body who's purpose is separating the unfit from the fit so as to maintain social order. History has proven this form of governent easily suseptible to evolving into totalitarianism.

mora · « **Reply #202 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:22:38 PM »

Those who are totally against this idea seem to think that this would increase the number of users dramatically. I don't see how this would happen.

This is how it should be done IMO:

- Those who would be eligible for perscription must have failed maintenance treatment several times. They also must have used heroin for several years.

- The heroin would only be sold/given in small amounts.

The above measures will make sure that the heroin does not end up in wrong hands to a significant degree. Because the junkies would get their dope legally these measures would lower its supply and availability. This would in turn prevent new people from getting addicted. The crime associated with heroin addiction would be lower because the dope would be inexpensive/free.

The Swiss example:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/switzerland/
http://www.opiateaddictionrx.info/addiction/addiction04_05press.html

Tuomio · « **Reply #203 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:27:05 PM »

If giving heroin to addicts would reduce 40% of the inviduals in the program from stealing only 1:10 of what they currently are, would you support that program?

Approaching this issue via police + rehab has failed. There are parts of the chain missing and some of them are not even available at the moment. For example one day there will be cure for the chemichal heroin addiction. Until then i think supplying hard junkies their daily fix will somewhat keep the positive feedbacks at bay. Thats what is important, its IMO not a priority issue for the society to use whatever shady methods you can come up with to beat inviduals addiction. Its would be like trying to straighten a rope by pushing it.

bustr · « **Reply #204 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:49:08 PM »

Mora,

I took a look at your links. In Switzerland and Holland how does the government put addicts into rehab? Or how do these governments identify and motivate the individual to the rehab programs? One of the factors that is often overlooked in threads like this is simply the United States is not the EU. Programs that work in the EU probably work in part due to the smaller geographic area's and smaller populations along with cultures more favorably inclinde to working with the goverments.

I noticed that one of the articles has a commintary on the U.S.'s unwillingness to try the Swiss solution of prescribing Heroin in maintenace doses. As a taxpayer I am not interested in working to pay for an addicts maintenance dose of Heroin. That's paying the addict to not commit crimes. I'd rather the addict suffer the consiquences of It's addiction while sitting in a cell.

This is not a good vs. bad statement. The United States is not the EU.

Gunthr · « **Reply #205 on:** March 21, 2005, 02:02:44 PM »

Gimme a heroin junkie over a crack or meth addict, anyday.

I just don't see how the heroin program is workable. Lets assume the initial dosage is worked out with a doctor, and lets assume the doctor agrees that the prescribed amount should be enough to "get off" on, and that further, the junkies all tell the truth about thier elegibility for the program.

How is the issue of increasing tolerance addressed?

Most junkies take a break when it gets too expensive - will they be allowed back in the program after they've reduced thier tolerance by going cold turkey for a while?

If the junkie is allowed to walk away with the dope, how does the gov't prevent them from selling it to someone?

Does the gov't attach all kinds of conditions, rules, regs, therapy, etc with participants? If so, I doubt it will fly... or at least success will be limited to only a few addicts. Maybe that would be worth it, but ....

mora · « **Reply #206 on:** March 21, 2005, 02:44:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
Mora,

I took a look at your links. In Switzerland and Holland how does the government put addicts into rehab? Or how do these governments identify and motivate the individual to the rehab programs? One of the factors that is often overlooked in threads like this is simply the United States is not the EU. Programs that work in the EU probably work in part due to the smaller geographic area's and smaller populations along with cultures more favorably inclinde to working with the goverments.

I noticed that one of the articles has a commintary on the U.S.'s unwillingness to try the Swiss solution of prescribing Heroin in maintenace doses. As a taxpayer I am not interested in working to pay for an addicts maintenance dose of Heroin. That's paying the addict to not commit crimes. I'd rather the addict suffer the consiquences of It's addiction while sitting in a cell.

This is not a good vs. bad statement. The United States is not the EU.

The people in the rehab programs are there purely voluntarily.AFAIK they must have failed a regular maintenance treatment several times before and their eligibility is determined by a doctor.

You could aswell make them pay for the dope. It would still be many times cheaper than in the street. It must also remembered that putting them in prison is much more expensive than anything.

The US drug policy has failed miserably. I don't think that your belief about cultural differences is really a valid reason not to try anything new. It may work better or it may work worse. I think you are foolish if you refuse to try any other measures..

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
How is the issue of increasing tolerance addressed?

Most junkies take a break when it gets too expensive - will they be allowed back in the program after they've reduced thier tolerance by going cold turkey for a while?

If the junkie is allowed to walk away with the dope, how does the gov't prevent them from selling it to someone?

Nothing would keep them from selling it, but they shouldn't be given any large amounts to go. If they are determined to need more they should shoot the extra dose in supervised conditions.

Sure there would be some abuse but the overall availibility of heroin would likely be lower.

All that I've said in this thread may sound socialist and that's why seem repulsive to many of you. Those of you should remember that the current US drug policy couldn't be further away from the core American values.

lazs2 · « **Reply #207 on:** March 21, 2005, 04:40:06 PM »

I have admitted that I don't know what would happen. I don't know if more addicts than current would be created by such a program. I am very sure that addicts will gravitate to the area where they are "normal" and accepted and..... most of all.... get free drugs. Much like SF in California (or most large cities) attract gays. The difference is tho that junkies will not be good for the area. quite the reverse will be true. They will trash the city.

Will we all be better off? who knows... probly not. The ones who steal will continue to steal because they can't earn. The ones who leave other cities will be repalced and the cities with free drugs will become cesspools. Vancouver is pretty much a cesspool allready so no big loss.

I notice that they aren't suggesting that the program be tried on victoria island tho.

lazs

mora · « **Reply #208 on:** March 21, 2005, 05:17:27 PM »

I do agree that there are differences between the US and the Europe in some regards. It's very unlikely that this kind of experiment would be nationwide in the US. This would most likely lead to some areas becoming cesspools.