Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on March 14, 2005, 08:48:50 PM
-
OK i'm kinda torn about this because I subscribe to the denis leary approach to drugs...."not less drugs...but more drugs and to the right people"
But seriously, does this actually work? Trying to reduce crime by giving away free drugs and no encouragment to stop. OR, is it give the refuse of society a safe place to kill themselves.
Interestingly it is kinda like the gun control issues. More guns equal less crime....more drugs equal less drug use?????? Plus you take the illegal thrill out of it if it's free.
Vancouver Tries Free Heroin Program
Monday, March 14, 2005
VANCOUVER, British Columbia Just over the United States northwest border, addicts will soon be able to get their fix from the Canadian government in the form of free heroin (search) administered by nurses and doctors on the taxpayer's dime.
"They're using heroin. They'll continue to use heroin. What we're trying to do is prevent them from getting something irreversible like HIV, hep [hepatitis] C and overdose death, said Dr. Martin Schechter, the director of the heroin program.
Vancouver is the first city to take part in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative, which plans to enroll 470 participants at three sites in Canada. The Toronto and Montreal sites are expected to begin recruiting candidates this spring.
Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham (search) is among supporters who say the heroin giveaway will let junkies shoot up without having to resort to theft or prostitution to buy their drugs. Breaking that cycle of crime, they argue, is the first step toward turning an addict's life around.
Im not a medical expert, this is not my field. I'm an expert in public safety," Graham said. "And if this will help reduce the crime rate I'm all for it."
In the program all addicts have to do to get their fix is show up three times a day seven days a week.
Junkies offered different views of the program to FOX News. Some think it's the government's way of killing them, while others say they can't wait for the free dope. But none of them thought it would eventually get them clean.
"I think it would lower the crime rate. Nobody's gonna be robbing each other. Nobody's going to be sick enough to rob each other. All be taken care of. Free dope, woo-hoo, said heroin addict Olivia Edgars.
Recovered addict Chuck Swesey - who's been clean 20 years - says the program smacks of government drug pushing. He says he knows how he would've ended under a program like this: "I'd be dead ... or I'd be in a jail or an institution."
The $8 million Canadian program is patterned after similar efforts in Europe.
Click on the video box above to see a complete report by FOX News' Dan Springer.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But seriously, does this actually work? Trying to reduce crime by giving away free drugs and no encouragment to stop. OR, is it give the refuse of society a safe place to kill themselves.
that doesnt make much sense...i would only give it any support, if at the same time the people getting it HAD to be in a rehab program thingy...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
"But seriously, does this actually work? Trying to reduce crime by giving away free drugs and no encouragment to stop. OR, is it give the refuse of society a safe place to kill themselves.
Yeah, of course it would work.
Junkies don't steal stuff for the thrill of it. They'd rather be smacked-out 24/7. Stealing is a pain in the arse. A complication. But a neccessary complication.
But then there's guys like me (and there are thousands of us) who just couldn't go to quite that extreme. It was a giant hassle. Every day was a giant hassle. Finally, enough becomes enough.
But if I were in that free drug giveaway program, you can bet yer arse I'd be on smack at this very moment. Like what... ya gonna refuse that? No fricken way.
It's ridiculous.
Junkies gotta hit a wall. One way or another. Be it death, be it jail, be it a way out. They all have to hit a wall.
Because living on heroin is already death. So ultimately, free drugs keep them in death, in order to save them from it?
No. This has probably got a lot more to do with property crime and property taxes than anything else. They're writing the junkies off.
Maybe, for society's sake, that's the way to go. I dunno. But thank god this program didn't happen when I was active. Missed it by just a year. Dodged a bullet there.
-
Heroine was never banned because it was linked with crime.
-
Free supply of drugs to clean up their streets instead of making a real effort to rehab these people? I hope it goes through. Then hopefully the heroin addicts here in the US will travel north and stay in Canada. One less drug addict running around the streets doing little to nothing.
It's amazing how many citizens live a productive life free of drugs but the government finds it necessary to give free hits to these people. I'm just curious which drug will it be next?
What other "addictive" things that cause crime and/or the spreading of diseases will the government start handing out for free?
Rapists commit crimes and have the ability to spread diseases so will this be the next step for them too? Why bother trying to rehab them just give it to them for free. I'm sure they can establish a free "red light" district right in the middle of your neighborhoods.
-
Nash, what do you think of the movie "Ray"?
-
I don't think the crime rate would decline at all because the dealers and their crews are technically employed in this black market that our country tolerates. If the government starts distributing free drugs to users and takes away this market what are the dealers and the people that work for them going to do get a job? I dont think so. Also what are the users going to do that cannot get any more controlled substances free from the government go back to the dealers? You might see a slight dip in the crime rate but not the dent that this theory suggests. The results most people want to see here I think are extremely long term too long for the general public and the politicians to wait. The war on drugs to me is a stalemate no side is winning and no side is losing (talking good guys vs. bad guys here). You take 12 dealers off of the street and here comes the second string - 12 replacement players. Broom them and here comes the third string. It never ends - dealers or users - it's a revolving door. Its like a garbage can and every now and then a storm comes and the wind blows and the garbage can shakes and rolls around. All the cops can do is make sure the lid stays on. Figures that some Democrats like this idea - they just can't wait to tax it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Nash, what do you think of the movie "Ray"?
I liked it. Didn't really know squat about the guy before. But (and I think this is what you're asking) it portrayed his struggle with heroin addiction as so much easier than it undoubtedly went down in real life.
-
Why anyone thinks addicts are going to get clean when they get drugs for free is beyond me. It flies in the face of human nature. If they give you the ***t for free why stop using it????
Are they going to provide just a maintenance dose or are they going to provide larger and larger doses on demend? Addiction is NOT static. If it's just a mantenance dose they will eventually start doing the stuff they need to do to get additional dope outside of that provided by the program.
I agree with Nash, they are writing off the addicts and just taking a different approach to lowering property crime.
-
Heroin is the ultimate paradox to consensual crime. Itr's outcome is undoubted by anyone. Prevention and intervention are the only defencenses in this case.
-
seems to me Nash is right.
They are writing the junkies off...
****ers... spend the money on treatment, not giving them more drugs... :mad:
My bet is none of the bastards have a son / daughter, brother or sister who are strung out on heroin.
****ing pisses me off beyond comprehesion.
-
I gather they are trying to save lives. Since we are talking about goverment there must be stats to back up such a seemingly stupid idea surely?
-
I don't think we really need to dig too deep into BC's governmental inneptitude.... Lets just call that one a gimme.
But yes, surely the whole thing is surrounded by a constellation of stats.
Besides the obvious epidemic, I don't know what the numbers are.
And I don't know what calculations these number crunching pinheaded geeks have landed on to come up with such a completely moronic solution as to just give drugs away were. But theys got computers to figure all that out I reckon.
Jesus christ.
There's one thing I like about all of it though.... and that it is... one way or another.... I guess we're all going to get to see how it plays out.
-
I'm all for a quick solution - take all that coke that was seized in columbian raids and customs around the world. Take an addict and put him in a room along with 100g of 100% pure dope.
Let him OD - problem solved.
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.
No junkies life is worth letting him murder someone else for $2.
-
Well, you can't help folks that don't want to be helped.
I'm not sure you want to accelerate their self-destruction either.
Obviously the government feels there is some benefit, either to the junkies or to the non-addicted part of society, possibly both.
It's hard to see where this is going to benefit the true junkie unless shortening his life is considered "better" for him.
I dunno. We'll all watch and see.
-
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.
Who said anything about murder? Like... wtf?
"Addicts are weak individuals who can't survive in a normal society without drugs. "
Do you have any idea what it takes to survive as an addict?
It does not rain drugs, ya know? Drugs do not grow on trees.
Most of the addicts I know can probably kick the living 5hit out of you without breakin' a sweat.... so thank your lucky stars that you don't have the balls enough to say anything even close to resembling that to their faces.
Between you and me, , I know you wouldn't. It's better that way. All the way around.
Weak, yes... and most certainly no. You don't know anything unless/until you've walked in a pair. And don't count it out. Not even at this stage in the game. It could be your turn at bat and you don't even know it yet. Funny? Unlikely? Well, we thought so too.
When did Limbaugh become an addict, anyways? Mmm... Thirty seconds after berating them? 45? An hour?
Y'all can discuss, oh, whatever... laws and the drug problem ad infinitum... ayup. But please don't ever disparage the individual drug user without knowing him first.
Ninety-nine percent of them... when the veil falls, and it all wears off... well.... they are saints. I mean, holy-5hit... I am blessed to know them type saints. It is an unbelievable thing to watch happen. Impossible to explain.
Do not shoot your mouth off about this. It is bound to be wildly misinformed. Do not be an ass. It is just not that loving. Contributes nothing. Is dirt-like. But if that's yer bag.. well, own it.... and realize that in doing so, you have pretty-much the same sized problem as the addicts do.
As we used to say.... "and we thought we had problems."
-
It'll be interesting to see. As far as rehabilitation, I agree with Toad; they have to want to go clean. And if they'd rather drug themselves into an early grave, they're welcome to do it. It's their life to screw up, and if giving 'em free drugs has a benefit to the rest of society, then give it to 'em.
-
For some of you crime fighting folks on this board....
What would an influx of about $8 Million dollars to the budget do to your ability to take down more dealers and such.
Or what would 8 million do to drug rehab and outreach programs. I'm glad you guys don't think I posted this just to pick on Canadians cause that kinda post would have sounded alot different. I just thaught this was a really interesting yet seemingly stupid Idea.
-
So Gunslinger tossing 8 million dollars out to support a bunch heroin addicts is the answer? I'm sure this 8 million dollar program is worth the cause.
I mean just how much money is actually lost due to crimes by these individuals? How much money is spent on the ones that do contract AIDS? From how they make it sound, spending 8 million dollars to support a bunch of junkies will in the end out weigh the cost of the crimes and spreading of diseases these junkies inflict on the community.
Does their statistics account for how much money these junkies will have wasted because they are to doped up to work. How many more lives will be put in jeapordy because the government made it free and legal for them to get high?
It's bad enough we have drunks doing this crap on a daily basis but now we would prefer to add a bunch of government supported heroin addicts to the statistics? We waste enough money on low lifes who refuse to work because the government will give them assistance. We also waste too much money on a bunch of alcoholics who either refuse to work or waste time at work due to their habits. I mean come on add one more group to the list?
I've spent enough time carrying the weight of lazy arse irresponsible people like this at work. The last thing we need to do is sponsor more irresponisble individuals like this because they lack the desire to seek help and try and break the habit.
You can go ask the Eagle crew chief that was just rear ended no less than a week ago by some guy under the influence doing almost a 100mph what he thinks of adding heroin addicts supported by the government to the DUI list.
If they were doing it to actually help them break their addiction then okay. To do it just because it will supposedly lessen crime and the spread of diseases, no way. Giving a kid candy because they won't stop crying or throwing a tantrum because they want the candy isn't the way to go.
-
Weak, yes... and most certainly no. You don't know anything unless/until you've walked in a pair. And don't count it out. Not even at this stage in the game. It could be your turn at bat and you don't even know it yet. Funny? Unlikely? Well, we thought so too.
They're weak from the head, not by physics. They're weak as individuals because they took drugs for a reason. They wanted to escape the reality and became addicts. That's weakness.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
They're weak from the head, not by physics. They're weak as individuals because they took drugs for a reason. They wanted to escape the reality and became addicts. That's weakness.
"Weak from the head"....
And uh, unlike them, yer real strong in the head....
Right?
You consider yourself normal? Strong in the head?
I got 10 of your co-workers that didn't even realize that you geek out nightly on a BBS that, upon knowing so, would say diferent....
Oh mister got-it-all-together.
-
All I wanna do is have some fun till the sun goes over Santa Monica boulevard
-
I don't feel any need to comment on "weak in the head", but I can tell you with no uncertainty that I won't be doing heroin in my lifetime. Some things are just too stupid for words.
-
"I'll try anything once... but I aint ever doing heroin."
I can give you the phone number of at least fifteen people that have heard me say this.
It's commendable SOB... it is. Really. But.....
I dunno....
-
It ain't commendable, it's just not something I'll do. You can speculate all ya want, but I'm not you, so your experience in this regard really isn't relevant to me. <--- in case that comes off as condesending or something, it wasn't meant that way.
-
No.. I didn't read that as condescending at all. It's all good. And I've said, probably, at various times, just exactly what you are saying now. Most likely with even more conviction.
Uhm... well yeah.
-
Nash it seems your defending these addicts. I mean come on. You are a very good example that you can break the addiction. I don't doubt that it's probably one of the most difficult things to do if you get caught up in it.
To sit here and defend them though is absurd considering you have actually done what so many of those claim is so impossible to do and claim they can't live without it.
-
Did you pound your fist on the table while saying it with a sour look on your puss? 'Cause I'm doing that right now. My cat is looking at me funny.
-
I could never imagine trying heroin myself.
-
Cobra... Yeah I am defending the addicts.
Heroin, however, is pure evil. I can't even describe it. It's shrecking insidious. It not only takes away hope, it takes away hope of ever having hope. Ever, again. If that makes any sense.
I mean, for real... it shrecking tears out your soul. It lies, and you know it lies... but you have no choice but to believe them.
I can't blame addicts. There's just no way.
-
I don't like the idea of giving anything out for free. I would not object however, if it would be sold to those who obviously are unable to get clean with a doctors perscription at a reasonable price. A person who would be eligible would have had to fail subtitution treatment several times.
-
The governments are performing an unethical experiment with taxpayers dollars that may very likely lead to the deaths of the subjects, absolutely mindblowing.
Can these addicts even give legal consent to this...lawyer types?
Originally posted by Nash
I can't blame addicts.
You can blame them for deciding to stick a needle in thier arm the first time.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The governments are performing an unethical experiment with taxpayers dollars that may very likely lead to the deaths of the subjects, absolutely mindblowing.
Why would it lead to more deaths than street heroin? The OD's result from the variation of the purity of street heroin. This stuff would be quality controlled.
The Dutch have been doing this for quite some time, and they have the lowest numbers of deaths from heroin. Heck there's more deaths from Heroin even in Finland, not to mention Norway than the Netherlands which has many times the population.
I'm sure they are not giving it just to anyone, which would be foolish.
-
You consider yourself normal? Strong in the head?
I got 10 of your co-workers that didn't even realize that you geek out nightly on a BBS that, upon knowing so, would say diferent....
Oh mister got-it-all-together.
Heh my co-workers know very well that I frequent different UBB's. I take a few hours posting on a UBB over heroin _any day_.
How many innocent sidestanders get shot through AH UBB crime annually? How many people get robbed because I have to get 'tha bandwith fixx' or 'shoot up some bull on O'club'? An OD of UBB makes you stop posting at maximum. :D
Sounds to me like you're an addict yourself and feel attacked by my legitimate comment.
-
I think there's something about this that y'all gotta realize.
When yer talking about an "addict", you are well beyond describing some dude that gets loud at a party.
And it's waaaaaaay past some dude who just never seems to quit.
unh-uh. It's in a completely different time zone. On a different planet.
Ya don't leave the house. Except to score.
And when ya do? 1-2 minutes max of semi-fun times. The rest of it is just coming up to a level where you can function. Can walk. Can lift things. It aint about cheap thrills.
At this point, it's about survival. Functioning.
And that's all. That's really all. That's really, really all there is to it.
It's not Disneyland.
Yer mental state?.... damn, you could write a book. You have absolutely no interest in whatever life you had before. It would be a lie to say that the world, your life, your future made any difference to you now.
It turns truth into lies. You are now lying in bed, doped up, and thinking that you know something that everyone else doesn't. And the "doesn't" is that nothing matters. At all. One bit.
shreck it all... everything... a joke... a waste.
The phone rings. You usually don't answer. For months you don't answer. Until things get tight. Parents call? Yikes...... But see, they are out there, and I'm in here. Out there, is..... is.... nothingness. And too bad if they don't get it but I'm going to try and take them for everything they are worth.
Because they are out there... Normies... and they no longer matter. I don't matter. Nothing matters except that if I don't score a quarter right quick I am going to be REAL shrecking sick in a way that would make the common cold comparable to getting a massage by Bambi while sucking back fruity drinks with umbrellas or something.
Ah... I could go on and on...
Just say no.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think there's something about this that y'all gotta realize.
When yer talking about an "addict", you are well beyond describing some dude that gets loud at a party.
And it's waaaaaaay past some dude who just never seems to quit.
unh-uh. It's in a completely different time zone. On a different planet.
Ya don't leave the house. Except to score.
And when ya do? 1-2 minutes max of semi-fun times. The rest of it is just coming up to a level where you can function. Can walk. Can lift things. It aint about cheap thrills.
At this point, it's about survival. Functioning.
And that's all. That's really all. That's really, really all there is to it.
It's not Disneyland.
Yer mental state?.... damn, you could write a book. You have absolutely no interest in whatever life you had before. It would be a lie to say that the world, your life, your future made any difference to you now.
It turns truth into lies. You are now lying in bed, doped up, and thinking that you know something that everyone else doesn't. And the "doesn't" is that nothing matters. At all. One bit.
shreck it all... everything... a joke... a waste.
The phone rings. You usually don't answer. For months you don't answer. Until things get tight. Parents call? Yikes...... But see, they are out there, and I'm in here. Out there, is..... is.... nothingness. And too bad if they don't get it but I'm going to try and take them for everything they are worth.
Because they are out there... Normies... and they no longer matter. I don't matter. Nothing matters except that if I don't score a quarter right quick I am going to be REAL shrecking sick in a way that would make the common cold comparable to getting a massage by Bambi while sucking back fruity drinks with umbrellas or something.
Ah... I could go on and on...
Just say no.
Nash.
-
True Nash, however one must always remember that there's no such thing as 'safe use.'
If that guy gets 'loud at the parties' by chemical reaction he's already on the way to the gutter.
In addition, everyone who uses drugs recreationally is aiding the drug industry and causing more and more casualties as a direct result.
-
Wow, that's a powerful description Nash.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Interestingly it is kinda like the gun control issues. More guns equal less crime....more drugs equal less drug use?????? Plus you take the illegal thrill out of it if it's free.
There might be some truth in that. As you know, Holland has a relaxed/tolerant attitude to drugs. I've even seen people in the very act of shooting up, right there in a shop doorway. The Dutch government recognised that there could be an AIDS epidemic if all those users were to be sharing needles, so they started the needle exchange programme. All a user had to do was to go along to the mobile unit - the needle bus - with a used syringe/needle, and he could get a brand new replacement free of charge. It's been a while since I read about this programme (my first visit to Amsterdam was in 1991) but I do faintly recall that heroin usage went down for the reason you said: The illegal thrill was partly removed, and also these people felt uncomfortable being helped by the state in this way. Originally posted by NUKE
All I wanna do is have some fun till the sun goes over Santa Monica boulevard
...and I've a feeling, you're not the only one! ;)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
True Nash, however one must always remember that there's no such thing as 'safe use.'
If that guy gets 'loud at the parties' by chemical reaction he's already on the way to the gutter.
Mostly yes, but there are some people who have done heroin occasionally and have gotten rid of it before going to total addiction.
There are differences between drugs. A person who gets "loud at parties" with X is unlikely to end up as an addict like Nash described. He's just slowly frying his brains.
I don't think Nash ever said anything about "safe use".
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
In addition, everyone who uses drugs recreationally is aiding the drug industry and causing more and more casualties as a direct result.
Yes, another reason which would support the legal supplying of drugs to addicts.
-
Nash just gave about 99% of us a kick to the balls reality check about heroin addicts.
-
NUKE are you saying that what Nash posted was news to you?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
NUKE are you saying that what Nash posted was news to you?
I'm saying that he put it into words like few could or ever did. He slammed it home imho.
-
The free heroin programme, is not just giving out Heroin. it is only given to registered addicts in place of methadone. Rather than use methadone as treatment, health services in places like switzerland, and now it seems vancouver, will give registered addicts a maintainance dose of heroin.
Methadone is not always a very effective treatment. The withdrawel symptoms are said by many to be worse, and many addicts will still use Heroin whilst they are on a methadone program giving their methadone away.
"Recent evidence from Switzerland and the Netherlands suggests that prescribing heroin for people with long-term dependency problems can lead to health and social improvements where other treatments have failed. "
source:http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?03915
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1759719.stm
"Heroin prescription scheme call
Allowing GPs in Scotland to prescribe heroin could help cut drug-related crime and nuisance, according to drugs advisers.
The Scottish Drugs Forum has said users could be helped by prescribed heroin and it believes a pilot should be set up to study the benefits of the idea.
The Home Office is soon to announce prescribing pilot schemes in England.
The Scottish Executive said it would monitor these pilots, but had no plans to promote a similar initiative here.
Most Scottish heroin users who receive treatment from health board addiction services are prescribed methadone.
Chaotic lives
It is a substitute drug which helps users stabilise their lives by removing the need for them to commit crimes to raise money for drugs.
But an estimated 1,000 injecting drug users - about 4% of the Scottish total - never contact treatment services and live chaotic lives.
It is these users who Scottish Drugs Forum said could be helped by prescribed heroin.
The group said it would be in addition to existing methadone programmes and has been successful in Switzerland and the Netherlands.
Forum director David Liddell acknowledged there would be widespread opposition to the idea, but said a pilot could establish the benefits of heroin prescribing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_3702000/3702428.stm
So the Jury appears to be out. One issue that I think has a factor in this country is that it is cheaper to prescribe methadone than heroin. For a publicly funded health service that is a major issue.
Nash very well put by the way. A wake up call for those who know very little about the issue!
-
Well now they can put public support to the poor farmers in Afghanistan whose main income comes from poppy farming. Instead of destroying the crop, they buy them and shoot up the junkies to high heaven.
I can't imagine anything more disgusting than a junkie. The less there are, the better.
-
Siaf there are many things more disgusting.
Addiction comes in many forms and is usualy a symptom of deeper causes.
Do you include smokers, alcoholics, gamblers, in your term "junkie"?
Actualy your idea about govt buying the Afghan poopy crop is not so daft. It might take a lot of that out of circulation. If a drug is legalised it can be regulated. Prohibition only makes it unregulated.
-
Any destructive addiction goes to the 'junkie' definition in my book.
Naturally there are levels, it's hard to kill yourself in the short run by smoking (unless you smoke at a gas station.)
Also by drinking it's quite hard to kill yourself although easyer than with smoking.
My wife smokes and the longer I live with an addict the clearer the pattern is. They need the fix desperately and it's increasingly annoying how it controls her. Luckily smoke doesn't kill immediately or even shorten the life of everyone.
Definately not something I'd do anyway even if I'm guilty of drinking a cognac now and then along with a coheba. :)
Well the coheba I did last time when my girl was born and I regreted doing that next morning - mouth and lungs felt like I ate an ashtray along with a bottle of cognac. I just can't understand how someone can suck that smoke on daily basis and actually need it too.
Skydancer what do you consider worse than a hepatitis ridden, AIDS wielding intravenous drug user ripping you off at gunpoint? The world does not need any of them.
-
As a trying to give up smoker. I can tell you that most times you actualy don't enjoy the smoke. Its something you do to feed the addiction to nicotene. And nicotene is V hard to quit. Ocasionaly a studmuffin is realy nice. after a long cold wet ride on the bike for example, or after a good meal. The addiction comes from the way the chemical interacts with the body to cause a physical dependancy. Illegal drugs can roughly be divided up into those that cause a physical/chemical dependancy and those that cause a psychological dependancy.
-
Skydancer there are several replacement treatments as well as medicine which will take the lust for nicotine away.
With a medicine treatment you have 2 weeks of time to get rid of the habit of smoking with no side effects.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Skydancer there are several replacement treatments as well as medicine which will take the lust for nicotine away.
With a medicine treatment you have 2 weeks of time to get rid of the habit of smoking with no side effects.
No side effects from Wellbutrin.. aside from the overall "blah" feeling, incredibly vivid, but extremely bizarre dreams, and the insomnia if you take the 2nd pill too late in the day. Does work like a champ though.
-
indy I meant nicotine side-effects not the actual treatment.
The medicine itself can make you depressive, even suicidal if you continue the use too long.
-
I believe that nash has a handle on it for a large portion of drug addicts... I also was and knew a large portion of drug addicts and..
In my circle... giving us free drugs would not have made us less of criminals or in any way stop our risky behavior. some decrease maybe but not stop by any means...
It is not just drugs... the hole isn't filled by limitless drugs... I had access to limitless drugs for years and it simply made me less on the radar for pointless crime. A better, smarter and more patient criminal..
addicts don't live only for the drugs except for the time they don't have em... give em enough drugs and you still won't satisfy em. The problem won't go away... I don't have the answer but I am afraid that the people who do simply tire of the life because of all the stuff that comes with it will simply have their hell prolonged by a free drugs program. Sometimes death isn't the worst thing.
lazs
-
If the government would slam every found addict directly to jail for a month. Repeat offense, back to slammer again.
A half dozen cold turkeys should do the trick - or the invidual is a masochist.
-
Jesus... shows what you know.
Just as many drugs inside as out.
You fancy yourself quite the little expert don't ya?
-
I think Nash is missing the point.
Free drugs programs are not intended in any way to help the addicts, just to prevent them from stealing and to take away the profits from dealers. Bottom line.
-
I can't see how anyone could obtain drugs while they're in solitary confinement for a month. Addicts shouldn't be let to fraternise with the other cons.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I think Nash is missing the point.
Free drugs programs are not intended in any way to help the addicts, just to prevent them from stealing and to take away the profits from dealers. Bottom line.
Well then you didn't read my first post in this thread. Or get to the part where I said this was about crime/taxes.
Siaf... just because you can't see it (big suprise) doesn't mean it aint a reality.
-
Heh Nash. Solitary confinement means the inmate is not allowed to be in contact with anyone except guards at feeding time. Period.
If your law enforcement is so inept that you can't stop the spread of dope even in sc then you truly have a problem.
-
Solitary confinement? Wha?
They just don't throw people in solitary confinement. Ya know? Most folks in prison aint in solitary confinement. Or are you imagining some kind of dream world here?
You are one inspiring dude. So inspiring, in fact, that the next time a car thread pops up, I'm going to head right in there and tell everyone how to rebuild a mothershreckin' engine from scratch.
-
Well duh didn't I just say _should_?
You missed the half dozen cold turkey part too huh?
Read the post before you start whining about it.
The biggest problem about fighting addicts is all the nannying and political correctness that come in the way of efficient counteraction.
-
Ooohh.... "should."
Okay.. So we are playing at fantasy now. I missed that part.
You want to pretend.
Neat.
-
Nash the world isn't ready. Therefore it's possible to use the word 'should' as in trying to bring progress to a) discussion b) methology used.
Get over it.
-
Good advice.
I'm off to work. Ciao.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well then you didn't read my first post in this thread. Or get to the part where I said this was about crime/taxes.
"No. This has probably got a lot more to do with property crime and property taxes than anything else. They're writing the junkies off. "
My bad, sorry. We agree then.
-
Nash,
Judging by your posts here on this subject it is obvious you are a former addict. And are the real deal and not just someone spouting off on what they think is true
Might not mean much but you have just earned an entire new respect from me.
I at 43 years of age am finding myself loosing on average over the last 10 years a friend every year or so for one reason or another.
I had 5 friends that became heroin addicts 3 of which I grew up with. 4 of the 5 are now dead with one last I've heard is in jail.
of those 4, 3 died either directly or indirectly because of herion. with the remaining one being crushed to death in a car wreak.Oddlyh enough she had kicked the habit some years before.
Of the other 3.
1 I know for fact died of an OD.
the other I suspect either did or died as a result of or I suspect years of use and mixing Coke and Heroin taking a toll on his heart. He died of a heart attack at age 37 a month after being released from Rikers Island (sp?)
The third Managed to get the crap kicked out of him going into a bad area to pick up a bag.
He went to the hospital but they sent him home.
His brother found him dead 3 days later in his Apt. Turns out he died from a ruptured spleen.
This last one My wife and I tried our best to help out. Took him into our home. Fed him, Paid for his methodone treatments. and tried to keep an eye on him as best we coould.
Unfortunately, it didnt seem to help and eventually we found out he was stealing money from us and going out and getting his fix during the times we werent around.
So I did the best I could for him. I set him up with an inhouse clinic at a hospital my Aunt worked at Gave him a carton of butts and dropped him off there.
Unfortunately he left. and two years later he was dead
He must have had some sort of premonition it was comming as 6 months before his death he gave me all sorts of his personal items. Things he cherished most.
Including a book on Bass fishing, and a gold Jack Danials pocket watch given to him by his father.
To a man, and woman these were all good good people.
Not at all like the way they are commonly portrayed on TV or in the movies.
These were among the kindest souls I've ever known who would do anything for you if they could even if they didnt know you.
I know of nobody that ever met or knew these people that didnt love them
I am not at all ashamed to admit I have tears welling up in my eyes now thinking about these people.
And I've found writing this rather difficult and not sure why I've said all this exept maybe I needed to vent a bit after reading your words.
As fluff'n angry as I would get at them for their addiction I miss them alot. Greg, Eddie, Bev and Mike.
Now all I have of them ar some trinkets and memories of good times and bad to tell my kids about these people.
so to you Nash I say WTFG.
Stay the course.
Im sure that even you has people that love you;)
Be more then just a memories and stories.
The life lost isnt just for you. but is lost for everyone that knows you.
And even here. I would rather argue with you then have to remember arguing with you.
-
Cobra,
I think you completly miss understood me. I think this is an interesting disscussion but I'm not saying I support it.
As far as the 8 mill goes I was asking what if any improvments in law enforcment could be made if that money didn't go to FREE drugs.
In other words could 8 million make a better impact fighting crime as to feeding the criminals to not commit it?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Heh Nash. Solitary confinement means the inmate is not allowed to be in contact with anyone except guards at feeding time. Period.
and if it's the guard who's supplying him?
on the big picture I don't think the program goes far enough. legalize all drugs so the price will fall to the point where the addict only needs to steal 1 car stereo instead of 10.
people who use whatever drug they chose recreationally (much like the guy who has a glass of bourbon after work) won't have to deal with a criminal element and aren't really the big problem in this country. they just get constantly accused of enabling the problem.
as for the true junkie. we all know he won't be happy with his current dose and just steal less. he'll steal the same and just get more dope, until he OD's.
while I haven't seen many statistics, I'm sure there are virtually no repeat offenders from a fatal overdose.
also, you can have all the govt sponsored propaganda you want. show the kids the fleet cars you took from drug dealers, all painted up black with 'DARE' written across them. and none of it will have the impact on kids drug use that dead junkies do.
-
Also, I think fantasy would indeed be the proper term for the thought that we would ever have enough solitary confinement cells to hold all of the drug offenders in the country for 30 days.
-
Gunslinger,
I like the idea you had but I have to say it would be a mere drop in the bucket. In the US alone there are approximately 7000 seperate police jurisdictions. Dividing up 8 mil would make it pretty watered down unfortunately. The borders around the US are about as water tight as a collander. Increasing interdiction is very hard to do and hideously expensive. I dopn't have any ideas of how to solve the problem but I darn sure don't think handing out free dope is the way to do it.
-
and if it's the guard who's supplying him?
Houston, we have a problem.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
as for the true junkie. we all know he won't be happy with his current dose and just steal less. he'll steal the same and just get more dope, until he OD's.
Good point. I started at about a fouth of a quater a day. By the end I was up to 4+ quarters a day, just to be able to feel somewhat normal (stand up, basically).
I have to believe that someone took this into consideration.... or, what are they gonna do? Keep upping the dose as the tolerance increases? It's weird.
Hey DREDIOCK, great post... Thank you.
-
Hey is their any chance of ... ummm.... "free female companionship" of some really hot Vancouver babes?
I'm sort of addicted to what they can provide. I'd even swear I was going to steal and stuff to keep up my habit.
Any chance of getting that by the city council? I might move up there.........
-
Sometimes, Toad, you are a genius. This is one of those times.
SOB
Fat Drunk Hoser, Eh!
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf A half dozen cold turkeys should do the trick - or the invidual is a masochist.
As you seem to be an expert in this field, why dont you post some evidence about the effectiveness of "cold turkey" treatment. The last I heard it's effectiveness was around 5%.
-
Only if Toad accepts european women.
Edit: oops.. work safe not
Shame tho.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But won't they get a moment of clarity after a month with no dope apathy?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
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?
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!!!
-
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?
-
Do you have any idea on the impact drug abuse has on the society? Whatever it takes to get rid of it it's worth it.
SOB for a price of one nuke you can 'treat' 10 000 junkies any day. The money is there, any time. All it takes is a decision. I'm sick of people 'understanding' the junkies. Nobody forces them to start the abuse and everyone of them knew the consequences. If we rule out innocent cases who became addicted through codein painkillers and such, they all became junkies by thier own decision initially.
If that decision leads to hurting other people physically or financyally then something should be done about it. Immediately.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
But won't they get a moment of clarity after a month with no dope apathy?
antoher thing that brought me back to this quote is that even if you manage to get that moment of clarity and it all makes sense to them, what good would that moment do for them?
when you do the math and stack that mental clarity up against weakness/addiction, weakness wins. you can stack up years of clarity against 1 moment of weakness and weakness wins.
-
Nash...
I had no idea. The way you put it in words is scary. I hope no one I know or care about does this to themselves.
What got you started on it?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What got you started on it?
I would have to say....
An insatiable curiousity combined with a potentially fatal mental defect of some kind. :D
-
Did you know others who tried it? I have never even seen it. None of my friends have ever gone near it.
-
Damn straight it's a write-off. It's a cold, heartless, analytical approach to make society feel like they're doing something helpful. Only problem is they're only helping themselves to feel better, not the addict.
8 million is nothing. Giving each and every addict the time and attention they need to truly get better is going to cost a LOT more.
This does nothing more than "maybe" lowering crime a bit and controlling the cash flow.
The cold, heartless bastard in me wants to say "hey, this is the best thing junkies could ask for, just stay high untill you die". A sort of assisted suicide.
The kind, caring side of me says we should do everything in our power to help these people (of whom I've known many).
Unfortunately we don't live in a kind and loving society. Where we put our tax dollars (stupid programs like this) proves it.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Do you have any idea on the impact drug abuse has on the society? Whatever it takes to get rid of it it's worth it.
Alcohol creates many times the "cost" than all illegal drugs combined. Then you have unhealthy eating habits and private automobiles. Should we do whatever it takes to get a rid of those too?
My answer is no. I wouldn't be ready shell out a single cent for any of those efforts plus I would not be willing to abolish my civil liberties, which the control network reguired would essentially mean.
I cannot think of a single thing that would support whatever it takes to get rid of.
When it comes to getting rid of drugs the clear fact is that drug policy doesn't really have an effect on levels of drug use. Infact the levels of drug use tend to be higher in countries that employ repressive drug policies, an the costs to society even more so. There is drug use in all societies including some Asian countries which are employing the death penalty.
-
I see the little blue discarded wrappers from the free needles from time to time arround town. I guess this is just an extension of that.
-
If it weren't for the needle exchange, I'd have hep C or some other scary thing, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind about it.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Gunslinger,
I like the idea you had but I have to say it would be a mere drop in the bucket. In the US alone there are approximately 7000 seperate police jurisdictions. Dividing up 8 mil would make it pretty watered down unfortunately. The borders around the US are about as water tight as a collander. Increasing interdiction is very hard to do and hideously expensive. I dopn't have any ideas of how to solve the problem but I darn sure don't think handing out free dope is the way to do it.
The 8 million figure came from the article about Vancouver. It was soley based on one city or one department. It was the amount stated in the article that was being devoted to the free dope program.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
SOB for a price of one nuke you can 'treat' 10 000 junkies any day. The money is there, any time. All it takes is a decision. I'm sick of people 'understanding' the junkies. Nobody forces them to start the abuse and everyone of them knew the consequences. If we rule out innocent cases who became addicted through codein painkillers and such, they all became junkies by thier own decision initially.
Yeah, and in a perfect world there wouldn't be junkies or nukes, and there'd always be a pretty pretty rainbow in the sky.
I don't care if people want to "understand" the junkies, that's their business. I personally don't give a damn about the junkies, and the least-cost option for society is what I'd be likely to support.
-
Hey... I admitted I was a 'tang junkie in this thread and here you are bashing junkies. That's cruel
.... and anyway, I'm getting "that feeling" right now... I can't settle down.. it's all I can think about... AGHHHH! I NEED MY FIX!!!!!!
Please... VANCOUVER HELP ME!!!!
-
Uh oh, Toad's getting randy. I'm outta here. Watch yer cornholes, buds!
-
The Pig farm was pretty inexpensive till they spent millions digging up bone fragments and running dna test on them.
-
Alcohol creates many times the "cost" than all illegal drugs combined. Then you have unhealthy eating habits and private automobiles. Should we do whatever it takes to get a rid of those too?
My answer is no. I wouldn't be ready shell out a single cent for any of those efforts plus I would not be willing to abolish my civil liberties, which the control network reguired would essentially mean.
I cannot think of a single thing that would support whatever it takes to get rid of.
Are you a friggin junkie too? Automobiles and eating are useful necessities you can't even talk about them in the same day with drugs. That's just plain rediculous. Drugs are in no way a benefit to the society, quite the contrary in fact. Alcoholists rarely rob people / kill people in order to get money for booze. Junkies do. I guess you never had your car stereo ripped off by a junkie so he could get his fix. I guess you never got hepatitis or Aids from an intravenous drug user who spreads the diseases not only through sharing needles but his sexual activities. I guess you like having drugged up zombies raving around you. Your civil liberties do not include drug usage even today. It's illegal. So what would be taken away from you?
And to SOB: Are you being intentionally dumb now or just can't help it? If your theory was right, nothing could ever develop. Nothing could ever be built. No new service could ever be started because it's not possible to find funding to anything new in this world.
This may come to you as a news flash but when the tsunami happened your own government all of the sudden found funding enough to send millions in support to the people. According to you it shouldn't be possible.
-
I think you're onto something here, siaf....
It's ambitious, but it just might work.
It will take an unprecedented mobilization of manpower, and millions, possibly billions of dollars. It may take several years, but... it has a chance.
All it needs now is a name. Something catchy. I know! Lets call it the "War on Drugs!"
You should talk to somebody who'd be able to get such an undertaking off the ground.
-
I think I'll hit on George W. Bush Jr. when he gets elected and he needs to continue the family tradition on being a war president. :D
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
They're weak from the head, not by physics. They're weak as individuals because they took drugs for a reason. They wanted to escape the reality and became addicts. That's weakness.
You are by far the most ignorant person I have ever seen to post on this board.
Welcome to my ignore list.
-
ROFL! What is this, hug a junkie group?
Face it, anyone who chooses to use drugs in todays world knows exactly the dangers. If he chooses to do so anyway, he has mental issues and has to resort in escapism. Drug usage is a direct result of not being able to handle life sober.
What's so hard to understand there?
Yeah, do yourself a favour and ignore me like you seem to ignore the whole problem. Everything bad will definately go away if we pretend it's not there, right?
Let's censor bad words and nipples from tv. Let's censor reports of street children. Let's censor reports of violence and abuse. Let's take some dope to make the world look better.
I say good riddance, you've chosen your path.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Are you a friggin junkie too? Automobiles and eating are useful necessities you can't even talk about them in the same day with drugs. That's just plain rediculous. Drugs are in no way a benefit to the society, quite the contrary in fact. Alcoholists rarely rob people / kill people in order to get money for booze. Junkies do. Your civil liberties do not include drug usage even today. It's illegal. So what would be taken away from you?
Yes but they cause way more deaths than drugs. If you are so raged about drugs you should be somewhat raged about about those, right? Eating junkfood is not a necessity neither are private automobiles.
Alcohol causes enormous costs to society. In a socialist state where helthcare is free and they receive social security the costs are enormous. It's prohibition was tried, and it failed miserably.
Making drug use illegal doesn't remove drug use as I stated earlier. If you would want to round up all the junkies you would need a surveillance network like the STASI in DDR, and that would infringe my privacy even if I don't use drugs. And the costs would again be enormous.
And... Because I disagree with you and have a grasp of reality I'm a junkie? get a grip and quit the personal attacks.
I'm getting a Hortlund Deja Vu from your debating style.
-
Mora you're the one going overboard with your stasi style.
The fact is that social workers today have knowledge of thousands of drug abusers and they do nothing about them. Nothing.
They let them continue the use, they let them spread disease, they let them loot and mug people on the streets and most importantly they let them finance criminal drug trafficing.
Mora are you really saying that you really can't see any difference between common household items and a dangerous, addictive and lifethreatening illegal substance which has no useful value? I mean get real now.
-
Siaf__csf
Question.
Have you ever even once gotten drunk? Or high.
On anything ever?
And if so.
Why did you do it?
-
I've got drunk on booze and high on love, nothing worse than that.
Why did I do it? Alcohol usage is common in social situations as it relaxes you. Well, also I happen to love good wine.
Why did I fall in love? Primal instinct.
Why I have never taken illegal drugs?
A) They're illegal.
B) Unlike alcohol, I know they're addictive even on short term use.
C) I'm not that stupid.
Any more questions?
-
yeah i have one-
Can you breath with your head so far up your prettythang?
-
Head up my ass?
You have to recheck your values if you think that someone who completely disagrees with drug usage and the mild ineffective methods used to combat it, has his head up his ass.
When I worked as a security guard, I had enough of people with substance abuse problems (and trust me, they're rare here compared to what you got there). You never knew what they did next. One retard smashed a glass bottle to his head and tried to blame it on me when the cops came to pick him up.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
B) Unlike alcohol, I know they're addictive even on short term use.
You cannot slump all illegal drugs together. Some of them are highly addictive and some are non-addictive or mildly addictive. Most of them have positive and negative effects just like alcohol.
Alcohol is around the middle of the scale when it comes to addictivity.
-
siaf... I think where you are confused is thinking that any addict including gambling and booze can be cured by getting the guy straight (away from the addiction long enough to get it out of his system) so that he can see the harm it did him and then reason.
that is not so bad an idea in and of itself. Every treatment program except methadone and this "experiment" use that method including AA and NA (narcotics anonymous).
It works. It works while they are in treatment (if they can't figure out a way to get loaded) and it works for 2-10% of all the addicts that get through it.
The rest go back out and use. It matters not how smart or tough they are. Sometimes that makes it worse. I find I am allways telling myself that now that I am "cured" I can drink like everyone else or... use drugs for "recreation" I am sure nash will have the same thoughts once the horror wears off...
In my case.. this is after 16 years clean.
If I start again... I won't stop until I am stopped or hit another massive bottom in my life. I will cause untold misery along the way to everyone and society in general but I won't care a bit.
Death for addict is appropriate if they kill someone... I think drunk drivers who kill for the second time need to be executed for instance...
junkies meth heads crack heads etc.. that get cought doing three burglaries should get the three strikes max penalties.
In the end...
No matter what we do we have to reallize that once an addict is created or found or whatever.... with the science we have today... there is less than a 10% chance that he is salvagable.
lazs
-
and... I am not talking about the addictivity of a drug... it matters not once the person is addicted. I have seen people so addicted to pot that they couldn't function normally and ruined the lives of everyone around them including theirs. Gambling does the same for some.
Some drugs like pot and gambling and booze allow people to have degree of addiction that may not be so bad onm society in the lesser degree of addiction.
I can give examples of simple use and mild addiction ruining a persons life tho in all the above mentione tho if you like.
lazs
-
Nash.
Respect!
I dont know you but huge respect to you. Your writing really kicked me in the balls. Ive never taken nor been tempted to take drugs but drugs do scare me. I like my wine, scotch and beer, its enough for me.
Living in a relativly "drug free" (read low public usage) country like Sweden one doesnt get in contact with drug adicts in the same way as other. What you described was very human, while extreamly unhuman, and thats what made it so scary.
Also it gives me extra depth in the admirations to thoose, like your self, who break free.
Since Im not religous I cant pray for you to be able to stay clean rest of your life but I can cross my fingers and hope.
In my book the people I respect the most arnt the perfect people but the people who work to improve them selfs, their situation and the situation of others. You definatly fall into that cathegory.
Respect!!
Tex.
Ps. Dont let the arrogant brats who still live in the pubertal illution of the world beeing black of white get to you. Ds.
-
Lazs2 you just showed how pointless moras argument was. The only way to stay clean is to keep clean.
If you pass the mental edge of buying an illegal drug (even if it's just pot) you're already on the way. You're now connected to people who are either addicts or the very least know people who supply the stuff.
So you take some pot. You like it.. Heck like taking booze but no hangover right? This aint that bad, lets try some X or coke that the nice dealer recommends you next.. Bah now I'm on the run lets take some PCP or heroin.. :rolleyes:
I know that sounds like a joke but it's not for so many people every day.
Even alcohol is not safe, but it's legal and that's where I draw the limit to. You can't buy dope from a liquor store (well, a legal one at least.)
I know alcoholics that have ruined thier life completely with alcohol. Although it usually takes years the result is nasty nevertheless. But there's one big difference.
First of all, the use is legal. Secondly most people can control the use in order to keep it from becoming a problem. Some people don't and they quite frankly shouldn't touch any of the stuff.
One of my relatives is a gambling addict. Now that's something I really can't understand.
-
Lazs2/Nash I'm terribly sorry to hear that you've had to go through and live with addiction.
If you think it can't be cured, how did you survive so far and what do you suggest to do to it?
There has to be some way to prevent new people from making the mistake. There must be some way to force users to quit and rethink.
The biggest question to me is what makes a person puff that first puff not to mention shoot that first load in the vein.
What made you do it? Heck, we have experts now on board.
I can give examples of simple use and mild addiction ruining a persons life tho in all the above mentione tho if you like
You don't have to. Just watch COPS for a few episodes. DUI, drunken and disorderly, domestic violence.. But what is really behind the use. Socioeconomic trouble? Genetics? Social peer pressure?
-
everyone reaches a "bottom" if they use long enough or hard enough. I was about as bad as they get. I was injured and shot at and stabbed and beat people near to death and it wasn't a big deal... I lost wives and people who loved me and it was no big deal... huge sums of money... no big deal... health... not to worry. some simply die. for some reason... something small set me in motion to quit... all the other bad things in my life seemed to gel over some small thing I can't even recall... It became very clear that I needed to stop.
figure out a way to bottle that.
I made shrinks cry that had tried to talk me out of my addiction in the past with no affect yet... for some reason... everything came together at once and I quit and I found a group of other former addicts that I admired and liked and hung out with them 24/7
my daughter has completrely ruined her life with very little hope of saving herself at this point. She still lies to herself and everyone else about it and will not take any blame at all for the way things have gone. She is very predictable in her behavior to everyone but herself. I have no idea if she will kick it or die first. I have done pretty much everything I can do at this point. I am letting her run. I will revist helping her at a latter time when it might do some good. The 3 rehabs did no good at all.
I think that the one thing that most of the recovered people I know have in common is that they are able to use the stubborness that is the addict in a way that helps them quit.
When I quit the guys in the AA group were all callously making bets on how long I would stay clean with a side bet on how long I would live.... It seemed a tad cruel at the time but it kicked in my stubborness...
Actually... I really don't have a clue as to what works... it seems different for every recovering addict I know/knew. I know what makes failure tho.... thinking that you can use again "just like normal people"
lazs
lazs
-
Wow now I'm really sorry for you lazs.
There's nothing worse than watching your own childs life get ruined.
Three rehabs without success? May I ask how did she start the use? Were you still abusing when she was a child and she got sucked in?
-
Most kids start in high school or earlier before the parent even have a clue... if they are an addict... it is far too late by the time you spot it..
My real point was.... the answer to your question and the vast weight of all my experiance...
I don't have a friggin clue as to the answer..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
If you think it can't be cured, how did you survive so far and what do you suggest to do to it?
No addiction can be cured.
Why do you think ex-alcoholics stay away from alcohol totally? Because if they have one small drink they fall right back into it.
The physical addiction (the bodies need for the substance) can be reduced to a infinatisimal level but it will always be there lurkin in the shadows. Have a drink, or what ever substance it is, and it kicks in again.
The only way I can see drug usage prevented is if people like Nash and Lazs2 share their stories. Education through "scare propaganda" where someone who doesnt have a clue preaches "drugs kill" is totally useless. Its like preaching to a kid "dont open that door" "dont open that door" ofcourse he will open that door.
Instead if people who have gone through that door tell their story just through reciting their experience it does have an effect. People listen to other people with experience, if its provided through a very human way it is even more powerfull.
The thing is it aint enough to just hear it once from one person. People really need to be reminded of it constantly (at least once in a while). I say people because while I think this really has to start in the schools it has to continue through out ones entire life. So education on this should be in schools, workplaces and at home.
But it doesnt end there. Its also a social problem. Alot (ofcourse not all) substance abuse is related to social situations, be it the neighbour hood you grow up in, broken marriges, "wrong" friends or just general lonelyness. The social aspect cant be ignored.
Another thing that is also a factor, not only to drugs though but to general mental state of the individuals in our society, is that through increase of communication technology the individuals have become more and more alone. We all say its so fantasticly easy to stay in touch with people these days, we got cellphones, sms, email, chats ect ect but yet we are more alone then ever.
Why is this? Simply because we need human contact. The more we use technology to communicate with friends and family the less human contact we get and hence the sence of lonelieness increases.
These are a few things that imho should be factored in when working to prevent substance abuse.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Lazs2 you just showed how pointless moras argument was. The only way to stay clean is to keep clean.
Which argument was that?
-
tex.. I do not believe that nash or I could be of much help to addicts who are currently using and have no real desire to stop.
lazs
-
The question of how I ended up sticking that first needle into my arm is kind of irrelevant. It doesn't really matter, and I can barely remember it. It's as if you've been on a collision course with it for who knows how long... (a decade? Two decades?)... and it was only a matter of time. So what put me on that course is an interesting question, and one that I've thought about a lot... but it beats me if I know what it was.
So I don't know. Addicts become addicts long before they become addicts... iffin' ya know what I mean.
How'd I beat it? I beat it daily. That's not to say that I think about drugs or miss drugs or get the odd craving for drugs because I do not. It just means that I have to live a certain way, each day, in order for those thoughts/feelings not to come back.
I did detox for a week, and lived in a drug treatment center for 3 months. It was excellent. But I was well aware of the grim recovery statistics and knew that a large majority of the people in there were going to be on the wrong side of that dividing line; I was detrmined not to join them.
When I got out, I moved to a new city where I didn't know anyone. This was March of last year.
When I get hungry, I eat. When I'm tired I sleep. These may seem like trivial things, but they aren't to me. I eat 3+ meals a day, and sometimes me and lazs have breakfast together. :)
I bought a weight bench for excercise. I read a lot of books on spirituality... budhism, tao, and just general you name it spirituality stuff. I try to meditate... but that's still very hard. All that stuff was a huge void in my life... gigantic... and it's hilarious to me now that I didn't even recognize that.
Uhm... I don't try and make anything happen. I just let things happen. Forgiveness is an automatic reflex.
I try for healthy hobbies like fishing, and this summer I'm adding golf to the list. Gonna try to figure cooking out too if the appliances will relent and allow it.
There's a sort of obsessive compulsive element to addiction, which needs to be replaced with something healthy. So when I say fishing, I mean I am making all the lures and flies myself, and reading everything I can on it. I'll play eighteen holes of golf at the driving range, picking irons depending on how far I hit the last ball.
I suspect Lazs' dissembling, cleaning, reassembling and shooting guns falls into this category somehow. Heck, we all share it to some degree.
Uhm... I appreciate things.... everything.... now. The sun and the rain.
Basically, it's all really simple stuff... just normal, decent living. But you have no idea how alien it all is to the average addict.
-
Originally posted by mora
Which argument was that?
You cannot slump all illegal drugs together. Some of them are highly addictive and some are non-addictive or mildly addictive. Most of them have positive and negative effects just like alcohol.
This argument. To me you gave an impression that you wanted to defend the use of mild drugs. Lazs story pointed out that there is no mild drug. Sure the physical symptoms may be lower than hard drugs.. But the point is once you choose the illegal substance road, you're on your way to the gutter. More importantly the fact that you chose tells you were going there before you even bought the first joint.
If you're prone for substance misuse, only way to avoid it is stay away from it. Completely.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
This argument. To me you gave an impression that you wanted to defend the use of mild drugs. Lazs story pointed out that there is no mild drug. Sure the physical symptoms may be lower than hard drugs.. But the point is once you choose the illegal substance road, you're on your way to the gutter. More importantly the fact that you chose tells you were going there before you even bought the first joint.
If you're prone for substance misuse, only way to avoid it is stay away from it. Completely.
I'm not "defending" anything. You said all the drugs are the same and I pointed otherwise.
And it's totally absurd to say that all people who try drugs end up in the gutter. We don't need to distort the facts, even if it's for a "good cause".
Yes, and addiction prone person is likely to get addicted to whatever he finds enjoyable.
-
And it's totally absurd to say that all people who try drugs end up in the gutter.
In many ways the moment you try them, you're already there.
-
Siaf
You are wrong on this one mate.
Many words of wisdom I have read here, but "your just say no" stance doesn't work. Drug use, addiction is a very complex issue.
It ain't about being better than the "junkie". Honestly on this issue I think we all ought to stand back sometimes and recognise "there but for the grace of god go I"
Thats all I'll say for now.
-
You're entitled to your opinnion Sundancer.
The 'just say no' approach has worked excellently for me at least.
When I was younger I hanged out with people who used to drink a lot and later smoke hash etc. One girl from the group went real bad in the dope, she was committed to a mental institute for some time after she tripped out good on some junk.
Now she ironically works at the desk of a liquor store. :) At least she made it back to normal world.
But.. I had fair chance to try all sorts of substances - I kept out of it and I'm glad I did.
-
It works until your life takes a serious downturn, or you never got a decent chance in the first place.
If your lucky enough never to have faced that then maybe. but most people in modern soc teeter on the edge at some point, and an awful lot are born into real sh*t.
-
Siaf... no offence, but your outlook seems very selfish.
You are saying, in essence, that what works for you should work for everyone else... simply because it works for you.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it?
-
Skydancer I'm sure you realize those are all only excuses. They fall right in the category 'can't handle life'.
I've seen my share of bad times when I was so poor I could hardly eat. I had to beg money from social services just to get by. Was alone, living in a crappy appartment. There were times when I wanted to end it all.
I didn't. Now I live in a 2-story house with my family (2 kids) and run a business..
All this happened quite fast, in about 5 years after doing some time hard physical work such as janitoring (including cleaning), delivering adverts for little to no pay, working as a security guard, industrial cleaner, industrial serviceman, warehouse grunt, supply buyer etc. At times I worked 32-hour shifts. Cleaned porta-toilets in festivals.
I used to crawl inside reactors (not nuclear excluding the measuring devices.) Oil harbours, chemical factories (boy they had some nice stuff there.) The worst job I did so far was probably cleaning up the waste cellar of a glass factory. The amount of glass spikes in that place are beyond description and they're all razor sharp. Touch any place and they go right through your double heavy-duty rubber gloves. The spikes penetrated the thick bottom of rubber boots and entered the foot. If you tried to remove them, the glass just snapped and left the piece inside the skin.
So I didn't get things on a golden spoon if that's what you think.
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone. Can you think any compelling reason not to say 'NO' before you're already addicted?
-
You make a lot of value judgements based on your own experiences. But everyone aint like you and that don't neccessarily make them worse or less worthy.
-
That's right Skydancer.. I can only value things through my own experience.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone.
You can't see any reason...
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone.
I can't see any reason why my stove would just up and die, but that doesn't mean that it's not broken.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone.
Every addict knows the "just say no" approach, yet says yes. Your approach is broken.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone.
A lot of professionals who devote their lives to the matter can probably see a few.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Nash I can't see any reason why the approach wouldn't work on anyone.
It is one thing to wonder, doubt, or have an opinion... and another thing entirely to preach that which you have little personal understanding of.
-
I can't see any reason why my stove would just up and die, but that doesn't mean that it's not broken.
Most likely your stove is functioning perfectly, it's just short on power. The switchbox.. ;)
Every addict knows the "just say no" approach, yet says yes. Your approach is broken.
I'm sure you'll provide me with a better approach now. Does that include drug usage?
-
I don't have a better approach, unfortunately. Keep 'em illegal, help those in trouble, and for heaven's sakes don't give them away. Other than that....?
I gotta wonder if drugs weren't put on this earth for a reason. To help some people exit life sooner, and help others to finally enter it.
Who knows...
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
You make a lot of value judgements based on your own experiences. But everyone aint like you and that don't neccessarily make them worse or less worthy.
FWIW, EVERYONE makes judgements based on their experiances. There is really no other way.
Let me explain. You hear your parents tell you not to do something and you test it anyhow. Eventually you do this enough to get the idea in your head that the experiances of others are a good basis to believe them. Then the next time you are told don't do something or something bad will happen and you believe it. You choose not to do it based on your PRIOR experiance that the information was good. Eventually you gain the ability to analyse situations for yourself and extrapolate an outcome based on information alone. Kids lack this ability in the early years.
Some folks never learn to do this and they can only learn through their own physical experiance.
-
yep nash... I gotta stay busy. Better to take cars and guns apart than my life. I somtimes think the government would rather I do drugs than have hobbies tho.
You are fairly new to recovery and as such you see a lot of pink cloud stuff.... and why not? so many things we missed due to the drugs... like seeing it all again for the first time. Unfortuantely that doesn't last and the mundane creeps back in. Having lots of hobbies and, like you, I read everything and.... well... we do have our brreakfasts together to cheer us..
I have no idea of how I started... I thought I was immune. I was the only kid who could drink a half a quart of whiskey at 14 and still function.... Hell... I was "good" at drinking. If someone around me tried something I did too... And I allways did more than everyone else.. LSD? what do you mean you split it three ways? Give me 5 hits you wimps!
you could I suppose have special camps for addicts or, simply kill the ones who were caught more than once. The reality is that you would only be making a mistake (in executing them) in about 2-10% of the cases. the other 90% or so you would be putting out of their misery. That 10% figure is a little high for me to endorse the death penalty tho.
It is not uncommon for the drug community to execute it's own.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
It works until your life takes a serious downturn, or you never got a decent chance in the first place.
If your lucky enough never to have faced that then maybe. but most people in modern soc teeter on the edge at some point, and an awful lot are born into real sh*t.
What a crock of ****. I know people whose lives make Nash's look like a teddybear picnic and they were never stupid enough to stick a needle in arm...especially not over some girl.
-
on that same note... soon after I quit.. my brother died and I lost my job and my second wife divorced me all in the same year.... allong with a medical death sentance that turned out to be exagerrated. all in the same year.
The point being that ... you have to convince yourself that there is no problem that you can possibly have that will improve if you start using again.
or, as other addicts so succinctly put it... don't use even if your bellybutton is falling off.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tex.. I do not believe that nash or I could be of much help to addicts who are currently using and have no real desire to stop.
lazs
I didnt mean help addicts... I ment help prevent kids (and adults) from trying drugs...
Proactive not reactive work is what guys like you and nash could do....
Tex
-
On the days when I showed up for highschool and we got whisked into an auditorium to hear someone speak about this stuff.... it didn't mean a thing to me.
Mighta helped someone else though... but personally, I have my doubts about that.
I really do think that you are on a collision course with this stuff from miles and miles back...
By the time yer talkin' to highschool kids... it is just too late. We already knew better than those chumps.
That being said... There was stuff I learned in rehab that I could not BELIEVE didn't get taught in highschool.
-
Originally posted by Nash
On the days when I showed up for highschool and we got whisked into an auditorium to hear someone speak about this stuff.... it didn't mean a thing to me.
Mighta helped someone else though... but personally, I have my doubts about that.
I really do think that you are on a collision course with this stuff from miles and miles back...
By the time yer talkin' to highschool kids... it is just too late. We already knew better than those chumps.
That being said... There was stuff I learned in rehab that I could not BELIEVE didn't get taught in highschool.
Actually I think highschool is quite late.
Now Im not only talkin drugs but basicly all kinds of "social information" (sorry for bad wording, swedish after all). Somehow its belived that its first in highschool that kids can be talked to about "reality out there". Highschool is too late.
Also just informing isnt enough, the attitude has to be changed. During ones life one has to be "coached" (like the word better then educated) on attitude and not behaviour. Behaviour is the result of attitude. To change behaviour or to affect behaviour one has to coach on the attitude.
Coaching litteraly means "help to self help". When coaching someone you cant do things or change things for the person you coach. What you can do is influence the person to do things him/her self in a certain way.
If you coach on attitude you will see results in the persons (whom you coach) behaviour.
Attitude cant be changed overnight in highschool. Attitude has to be coached from birth by parents and then through school from first grade by teachers, guest teachers and all other adults around the kid. Then in adult life this coaching has to continue from managers, team leaders and what ever senior people you deal with.
The problem is that we today get "educated" in school and not coached. School afterall is not just a place where you learn hard facts, its also a place where you more then anything get prepared for life (or rather should be).
If you just educate and dont coach you will see alot of kids with the attitude "screw math it sucks", "screw drug propaganda Im above it", "screw everything no one understands me", ect, ect.
When it comes to work life the problem is the same. Managers know next to nothing about coaching and all they do is push their group to achive the results applied to the group by an higher manager. This imho is much of the reason to burnouts today. Instead of focusing on coaching the individual, managers push the group to a goal set by someone else.
The financial goal of a team at work ofcourse has to be achived, just like the education level of a class in school, but if you coach the individuals in the group with focus on attitude and not behaviour you will easily exceed the set results. Plus the individual will be in a much better condition, mentally, as his/hers individual needs get adressed.
With coaching on attitude in schools from early days you guys would make a huge difference. Unfortunatly it doesnt work that way today and that is why you say that listening to others about drugs did nothing for you.
But if you ever get a change to talk to kids about drugs, imho you should take it. When/If you get this remember you cant do much about behaviour of the kids but you can help change the attitude, focus on that.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Nash
On the days when I showed up for highschool and we got whisked into an auditorium to hear someone speak about this stuff.... it didn't mean a thing to me.
The first time I ever saw 'pot' was right after a similar education class on the 8th grade. I was shocked as I remembered what was said earlier, but the tough guys were even more excited. That hash was probably some horse**** and the people who smoked it pretend to be high. As they thought it should be like alcohol but stronger they were swinging and falling all over the place.
So I guess the education worked for me. I never did anything except pot much later. The problem with that kind of education is that it backfires right at the moment a person takes the first toke.
-
tex... I think you are missing the point here. I not only talked to my daughter and son about drugs... I was a living example of before and after. It didn no good whatsoever. I might as well have been the old dufus they have go around to the schools.
mostly... I was just not cool anymore when I quit drugs so far as my daugther and her friends were concerned and... I was old... I wasn't smart like them and didn't really know what it was like to be young according to their way of thinking.
My son daubled in drugs and never had a problem even tho he was in a fairly popular band and had friends become addicts.
You can't use reason when it comes to addiction. I believe it is hardwired in.
lazs
-
To some extend I think you are totally right when you say its "hardwired in". I know at least for alcohol addiction (dont see a reason why it should be different with drugs) one is in a higher risk group if one has an addict in the familly, genetically in the familly.
Though I do think its genetical for everyone. I mean everyone can get addicted (some just are in a bigger risk group) and the way I see only thing that can prevent one from getting hooked is the attitude towards drugs that one has from early childhood.
I dont say my attitude is the right one, just that it works for me. Mine is "just tobaco and alcohol". I really dont have any desire (nor have I ever had) to use any other substances.
Though Im very aware of the fact that I can get hooked on alcohol just like Im on tobaco. I know Im in a relativly high risk group due to high tollerance and tbh through out my life I have had times when Ive been worried about my consumption.
I know that heroin is the worst kind of addiction there is but any addiction can ruin ones life, totally, christ even internet addiction can ruin ones life.
So Im always humble towards the risks (never think this cant happen to me) and have clear lines I draw and dont push them. That is my attitude towards drugs and alcohol and one that works for me. It working for me doesnt mean it works for everyone but most likely some more people then just me.
If I was to ever get kids then it is that attitude Id raise them with.
Tex
-
You can't use reason when it comes to addiction. I believe it is hardwired in.
lazs [/B]
I think there are ****loads of addicts out there. No necessarily drug addicts, but people sharing a common psychological makeup that has been/is good for something in relation to the survival of the species.
The majority of these people find either healthy or at least not too damaging ways of manifesting this urge, craving, need or whatever you wish to call it. Some collect stamps. Others race cars or become fighter pilots, pushing things as far as they can.
This 'addictive personality' is common in BASE jumpers. It's a very dangerous sport - there are many stochastic variables that cannot be controlled. You can pack perfectly only to have pilot chute hesitation and smack you're gone. Still people jump off fixed objects.
Still people drive race cars. Or take planes for the enjoyment of it. Or arrange a garden, fixes up cars, whatever.
Before judging addicts, it is well worth considering the basic psychological mechanism behind it.
-
There's only the difference that nobody mugs pensioners in order to get some race fuel. Stamp collectors do not spread deadly diseases among them through thier hobby. Gardening doesn't shorten the lifespan of the gardener.
A drug addict is a totally worthless individual to the society. He can't work, he can't take care of himself. He can, however, commit deadly crimes to finance drugs. He can cause deadly accidents through DUI for example. He can destroy the lives of everyone that care about him. He can and will cost to the society through healthcare services (his own and his victims.) Thieving junkies cause our insurance bills raise all the time.
It's something that can't be accepted in a society no matter what the reasons were.
-
Unless....
Unless they give the drugs away. And that brings us back to doe!
Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, Sol, La, Tee, Doe!
-
Yes Nash then we'd see a sharp rise in OD's and a much smaller problem afterwards.
How many people do you think would adopt this habit if everyone knew getting the stuff was for granted?
-
Oh, maybe the same ratio as people who drank during prohabition to those who drank after.
A much smaller number overall, but perhaps the same percentage?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Yes Nash then we'd see a sharp rise in OD's and a much smaller problem afterwards.
How many people do you think would adopt this habit if everyone knew getting the stuff was for granted?
likely not too many if you gave it away for free and put the body count on the front page of the news paper.
today you can talk all you want about 'lives ruined by drugs', but aside from being ignorant, kids aren't stupid.
they can see that most of the problems caused by drugs today are actually caused by the drugs being illegal, not the drugs themselves. the guy that lost his family and house didn't lose it because he grew pot, he lost it because the gov't took it when they caught him growing pot. (see the difference? if not this conversation is pointless.)
if you give them the dope they want, or at the very least don't put any obstacles between them and their dope, then the consequences can only be blamed on the junkie and the dope. a clear message.
as it is today the life of a junkie is fairly pointless. giving them the dope or at least legalizing it gives value to the life of a junkie. because some peoples only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others. at least thats a purpose.
-
There's just one problem. Dope is illegal for a reason.
Too large usage would cause collateral damage inevitably and effectively paralyze the society.
Junkies can't maintain themselves, they have to be maintained.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
likely not too many if you gave it away for free and put the body count on the front page of the news paper.
Yes, and the fact that most OD's happen because the purity of the street heroin varies greatly. So most likely there would be less death, no matter if you consider it to be positive or negative.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Junkies can't maintain themselves, they have to be maintained.
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, and the fact that most OD's happen because the purity of the street heroin varies greatly. So most likely there would be less death, no matter if you consider it to be positive or negative.
are you saying that- a number of the deaths from heroin use are caused by the laws that make it illegal (and therefore unpredictable in purity) and not so much by the properties of the drug itself?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
are you saying that- a number of the deaths from heroin use are caused by the laws that make it illegal (and therefore unpredictable in purity) and not so much by the properties of the drug itself?
I'm saying that it makes over dosing more likely. It's a helluva poison nevertheless.
-
http://fun.from.hell.pl/2004-01-19/anticannabisspot.mpeg
-
Pure dope or not, the amount used is not static for long. Read what Nash posted. to get the "high" you'll need more.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Pure dope or not, the amount used is not static for long. Read what Nash posted. to get the "high" you'll need more.
Yes the bodys tolerance of heroin grows when it's used constantly. Usually OD's happen after a break when a junkie shoots the 'usual amount'. If it's more pure than before an OD is more likely.
I'm certainly not saying that OD's don't happen even if the purity is constant.
-
Ok say the US Congress gets religion and legalises all drugs. Now the addicts can indulge all they want.
1. Who pays for their drugs?
I refuse to pay taxes so some druggy can indulge on my dime and spend it's life nonproductive. I was one of those nonproductive druggies for a time. I did the cold turkey route. I have no compassion or tollerance for it and them now. None of the druggies and dealers I associated with back then are alive, or not in prison now.
2. Where do they live now that they can completely indulge themselves?
I refuse to pay taxes to subsidise free housing so druggies can have a place to live while I bust my prettythang to pay my mortgage and secure my future. Some of us work for a living, and if we can, whats stopping them? Before I stopped I had no permenat address and was homeless for a time.
3. Why do so many make the mistake of treating them compassionately and expect the same in responce?
They conduct themselves across the gammit of human traits from enticingly charming to maniacly deranged. At no point do they care about anything but their addiction and feeding it. Unless It chooses to change It is not human in the sense we take for granted. It is an entity that sees you only as a source of resources to get a fix or an obstical in the way of the next fix.
My brother in law was a dealer in Washington DC. He had my sister hooked on speed for a time. He moved up to crack. He started doing his crack instead of selling it. His supplyer cut his throat for non payment of $15,000 in product. She got clean and worked long enough to get her 3 children into college or working with apartments. She is on permenant diability now due to her habit even though she kicked it. Her ex even got all of his brothers selling crack. He had 4. Only 1 is alive now. Three of them died within 6 monthes of each other. They all got hooked on it while dealing it. Thats why I moved to the west coast away from my sister, brother in law and inlaws. I still didn't do my cold turkey until 18 months after I was on the west coast.
Addiction to drugs can become a social flu with broad reaching consiquences
-
Excellent post bustr. Those were my worries also (and I'm not even US taxpayer lol.)
-
not sure what free drugs will help. The poor area that starts it will have an influx of the worst of the worst. Non addicts will avoid the place so the burden for support will be even higher. Many will remain criminals... free drugs or no.
free drugs or totally illegal drugs... both programs will probly do about the same amount of damage. I have never seen an addict be able to look at anothers misery or even death as a warning that they should stop... In a lot of cases it just fuels their addiction. Addicts don't even know how miserable they are.
I don't have any answers. I think it is sensible to just accept that some percentage of humans will be lost to drugs and addiction and that a tiny little fraction of those lost will recover. most will die early and cause untold misery on the people around em before they go.
sorry if that sounds fatalistic. It was meant to simply be pragmantic given the science of today. Not even sure that I want to turn off the risky behavior gene... I have made friends with it.
lazs
-
Just out of curiosity, what are the drug usage rates / problems in the countries that punish the use by public execution?
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Just out of curiosity, what are the drug usage rates / problems in the countries that punish the use by public execution?
I think that only China does that, and just for show purposes. I don't think they have any statistics available
-
executing the ones you caught would decrease the number of addicts in the population by at least the number you executed. It would of course cause you to execute a small percentage of people that were recoverable and cause you to execute a fairly large percentage that were not really addicts at all but simple dumb enough or unlucky enough to get caught.
The added expense of the executions might be enough to offset the reduction in crime commited by the addicts who were executed but it seems doubtful. We are not talking about reasonable people here.
lazs
-
I was more like thinking is there any correlance with hard punishments and the usage rate.
The chinese executions don't cost more than $1 / person by the way ;)
-
hash penalties would deter a large percent of casual users and not breathing any more would deter real addicts. The threat of hash penalties up to and including death would not deter an addict. I am not sure that china doesn't have more opium addicts than any other country.
lazs
-
but... please continue siaf... I find this look into the mind of a gun control advocate who feels that only the elite like himself should be armed.... I find it "facinating".
lazs
-
Who said anything about guns? They hang/chop heads down there. :)
-
dead is dead... I find it facinating that you feel that killing drug addicts is a viable solution while at the same time....you feel that you are elite enough to shoot and own firearms but must regulate the crazy people in yours and others countries.
No wonder you are so frieghtened... you think everyone is as nutty as you are.
lazs
-
Lazs you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not an advocate of anything gun related. You can shoot your guns as much as you like down there. Here, we simply don't need guns for protection. It's you who is so frightened that you think you must arm yourself.
-
Oh? seemed to me that you are a self proclaimed expert with lots of access to guns but allways chimes in about having more gun control.
We don't need guns for protection here either... until we need em. I could argue that you really don't need a seatbelt for protection either since your chance of getting into a wreck bad enough for it saving you are allmost nothing. I could argue that wearing the seatbelt every time you get into the car is more hassle than putting a handgun on the nightstand at night or in your bag when you travel.
either way... I don't advocate that the government have anthing to do with you wearing a seat belt or owning a handgun.
lazs
-
I think those born with an addictive personality can live thier whole life very happily if they never do drugs, alcohol and other substances.
But once they've tasted whatever it is that fills the hole inside them, life will not be the same. Even after getting clean and sober, the recovered addict will feel like a mountain climber standing on a four inch ledge... never able to be completely sure ...
The only way to live from that point forward is to always remember your grave, and to be thankful and appreciative of all the worthwhile things that you do have.
I think this is especially true for heroin users. You can tape that little monkey's mouth shut, but it will always be there, hanging on, waiting...
It isn't my intention to steal hope away from anyone, because obviously there can be fullfilling life after addiction. Its just different, and it requires a deeper committment to truth. The 12 steppers I know are the best friends a person could have - definately not shallow people.
-
Lazs2 I have access to guns through friends, true. I don't have a carry license myself (and it's required here).
My point was that where I never ever felt any need to get a gun for anything more than shooting some rounds in the range for fun, you seem to think it as a necessity for personal protection. I enjoyed shooting when I was in the army, but I never bothered to invest $500-$1000 in order to get a decent weapon for myself.
This shows a big gap in the sense of security between our two societies.
-
sciaf... no... you have it wrong yet again. I do not think it is a necessity for everyone to carry firearms... I think it is a necessity that everyone have the right to bear arms if they so wish.
I think it is also very good that some people wish to carry. I think we would all agree that we feel more secure when there is an armed policeman around. I extend that to feeling more secure when I know that a percentage of the people I see will be carrying concealed. It is not rocket science. Converly... criminals feel uneasy when they see armed police and when they know a certain percentage of their victims may be armed.
Now... your idiotic stance on guns seems to be rivaled by your lack of understanding about drugs. I sense a pattern... you are either very young with little life experiance or... just parroting what you hear in the media and from your friends.
lazs
-
Lazs2 idiotic is only to guarantee the right to bear arms to people who can't handle them. In thier hands guns become a general threat to everyone.
There has to be some control in order to ensure convicted criminals, insane people etc. won't be able to gain access to weapons (legally at least.)
In countries where weapons are more strictly controlled, there isn't an abundance of weapons like you guys have down there. The worst criminals are armed also here, but they're relatively rare.
Most petty criminals or loonies simply don't have firearms and therefore pose a significantly lesser threat than they could otherwise.
I prefer it that way.
It's interesting that you feel fit to critizise my opinnions on drugs where I'm addiction free compared, well, to you.
-
there you go.. our petty criminals are not armed. We have increased penalties for gun crime and that is as it should be.
People who are insane or retarded should not be allowed to have firearms nor should very young/imature children. I have no trouble with letting people who have served their time in prison being allowed to have firearms when they get out. (if you didn't trust em to have a gun why did you let em out?)
I most certainly do not want your version of gun control and think that you have little or no knowledge of what works or doesn't.
Our firearms ownership in the U.S. is at an all time high yet crime is at an all time low. The Department of Justice just released their 350 page study that shows that no gun control measure yet involked has been shown to lower crime in any way.
no study has ever shown that any safe storage law has had any effect on gun accidents or safety.
I think that you are simply a product of your countries brainwashing. You can't imagine that people be allowed to make choices without their governments sanction.
I think your stance on drugs shows this same type of thinking. You seem incapable of exploring any alternatives to more and more control... you definetly have control issues. What frieghtens me more than my neighbors having fireams is the fact that there are so many control freaks like you out there who think they know what is best for me.
lazs
-
and... no one is addiction free. we all have addictions. I was able to overcome some of my worst ones as was nash. I don't know if you could or not but you seem to be incapable of taking any personal responsibility and lean heavily on a strong government... this would tend to make me belive that you are a very weak individual (or simply young and idealistic)... either way... I doubt that you would be one of the small percentage of addicts that recovered.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Now... your idiotic stance on guns seems to be rivaled by your lack of understanding about drugs. I sense a pattern... you are either very young with little life experiance or... just parroting what you hear in the media and from your friends.
lazs
No disrespect to Siaf but he does seem a bit clueless about them, and it's very typical in here(assuming he is Finnish..).
The drugs are not very common here and more importantly the scene is very underground. Most people grow up without never realizing that there are drugs around them. Most of their knowledge about them comes from the naive education received on the 8th grade.
No one except maybe some populist politicians are suggesting executing them or anything like that. Actually the laws are much more lax than in the US for example.
-
I have no idea where he is from. Aparently he is ashamed of admiting it.
lazs
-
I most certainly do not want your version of gun control and think that you have little or no knowledge of what works or doesn't.
Just out of curiosity, what is my version of gun control?
Mora: I know there are addicts everywhere. If you would have read my posts (not that you should) you'd realize I've been in contact with them through work as well as friendship.
I know exactly what drugs and addiction can do and all that knowledge does nothing but increases my hostility towards the substances and thier users. Addicts lose thier sensibility and they shouldn't be treated as sensible persons. Mandatory treatment is the way to go.
Lazs2 how can you say nobody's addiction free when you can't know everyone? That's contradictive. Speaking for myself only, my worst addiction must be posting on UBB's if you can call it an addiction.
Lazs2 since UBB posts are not a nationalistic issue and I do not represent the official statements of my country in any way, I prefer to keep it secret.
I have no desire to turn every discussion to country x is better than country y and country z has this and that. I'm speaking for myself.
-
I think that you are simply a product of your countries brainwashing. You can't imagine that people be allowed to make choices without their governments sanction.
There's a word for a situation where individuals are allowed to make choices without the governments sanction: Anarchy.
I think your stance on drugs shows this same type of thinking. You seem incapable of exploring any alternatives to more and more control... you definetly have control issues. What frieghtens me more than my neighbors having fireams is the fact that there are so many control freaks like you out there who think they know what is best for me.
Alternatives for control? Do you think there will be less problems if we got rid of control? Losing control would only mean free distribution of drugs, free marketing to potential users, free examples for anyone even thinking of starting the use, free opportunity to destroy ones life.
The use must be made as difficult as humanly possible. Criminalization of use as well as distribution is in order.
-
freedom and human rights is not anarchy any more than libertarianism is.
Not everyone will become addicted to drugs even if they were free but... I am not advocating free drugs. I do feel that criminalizing use tends to make things worse.
I don't blame you for bieng ashamed of where you are from. It really doesn't matter tho that you claim you are seperate from it's ideals. The place you are from taints your reasoning. I am tainted by a constitution that respects human rights for instance. Apparently you are from a place that feels that government should have the control of people in every aspect that is potentially harmful to the individual or the government.
lazs
-
Lazs stick to the discussion, not to the would be legislation of a country. This is exactly why I wanted to avoid bringing it up.
I don't see why you're so hostile against me. From what I've read we pretty much agree on the issues on gun control. We both feel guns should never end in the hands of the inept and the only way to achieve this is bringing effective administration i.e. gun control.
Each gun owner should be licensed and the license should be revoked if necessary. Apart from UK I don't know places where any normal law-abiding citizen would have any trouble in getting a firearm for himself.
Personally I've made a decision to avoid getting firearms to my house as long as I have underage children playing around. If I made the mistake to leave the weapon accessible even once, the price could be too high to pay. Therefore I choose not to risk it.
-
no.... we don't even begin to agree on gun control.
I do not worry about whos hands guns end up in only on how they are used. If a rapist has one and never uses it in a crime then that is fine with me.
I do not believe that any gun should be registered because the potential for government abuse is too high. I don't want gun owners to be licenced at all but have no problem with a basic firearm safety course be part of buying a gun. I believe gun safety should be taught in school.
you make your own decisions and weigh the risks for children. I assume that means that you have nothing in your house that has the potential to harm them then? Could I go into your house and find items that are potentialy fatal if your children get them? where do you store your car keys?
better that children learn to respect dangerous things than to live in a house that is just a big padded bare room.
lazs
-
I do not believe that any gun should be registered because the potential for government abuse is too high.
That's quite heavy paranoia there. Do you think your government is your enemy and if you do, why?
I assume that means that you have nothing in your house that has the potential to harm them then? Could I go into your house and find items that are potentialy fatal if your children get them? where do you store your car keys?
Nothing that can kill them with one press of a trigger, no.
And I store my car keys in my pocket naturally. Even if my kids would have access to them, they're way too small to even think about getting in the car less that they knew how to use the remote. A gun however a child can easily pick up and pull the trigger.
-
are you saying that the UK governments never used the regestration information that they had to confiscate or force compliance when they finally banned most firearms? Paranoia? I think not.
you say you have nothing that will kill in your home with one press of the trigger... how bout one gulp or one stab or one trip or one drowning? as to "one press of the trigger" I have a loaded 45 Kimber on the counter and my 3 year old grand daughte is in the other room. she can press the trigger all she wants and it won't go off. I am more worried she will open the door and get into traffic or pull the knives down from the counter or fall down the stairs. I can find a whole lot of things in a home that are more dangerous to children than a gun.
lazs
-
I can't think anything more dangerous in a childs hands than a gun. Is it a week or two now that the 3-year old shot his brother in the states? Safe..
It's necessary to have stairs, it's necessary to have bathtubs, it's necessary to have knives and scissors. It's not necessary to have weapons. So I don't keep them around. I don't keep other dangers accessible to the kids either. I block the stairways so that the kids can't wander and fall there.
Lazs2 for what use do you absolutely need firearms? I've never found any use for them outside the firing range.
-
ah... so one accident last week in a country of allmost 300 million is your reason to ban guns in the home? you say that knives and cars and stairs and all manner of cleaning chemicals are necessary in the home but not guns? Guns prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year in the U.S so I would say that they have some use other than a small group of elite shooting at paper when their government allows.
Our forefathers felt that government had the tendancy to become tyrannical and made sure that the human right to defend ouselves was called out in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it has worked very well for us so far. Our burglary rate is low for homes burglarized while the people are in em... criminals all admit that armed citizens scare the hell out of em. The japs admited that invading a country that had it's citizens well armed was foolhardy... Not necessary?
States that pass right to carry laws enjoy a reduction in crime... How is this not necessary? the fact that criminals and government know that the population is armed is enough... you don't have to have each and every one of the armed citizens fending off wild gangs in order to prove necessity. You will probly never be killed by a drunk driver. Does that mean that drunk driving laws are "unnecessary"?
You claim that saying where you are from is not "necessary" to the discussion yet you use where you are from to prove that guns are not needed. How does that work? For all I know you are from one of the countries with a very high crime rate. Probly why you are ashamed of where you live. I am proud of where I live and am only ashamed that the women like yourself are taking away more and more of our rights.
You say that I have to have a reason to have a gun... I have shown that it is a deterent to tyranny and crime and probly the duty of any person who is a responsible citizen.. but... even without that... It is a human right to defend yourself and there is no concievable reason to stop law abiding citizens from owning fireams.
but keep talking... you are proving just how rabidly anti gun you are.
lazs
-
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.
-
so... there is nothing in the way that the U.S. controls firearms that you disagree with?
lazs
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :rolleyes: :lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ....
-
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..
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.
-
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
-
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.