I am Voting Conservative For Free Drugs!

rosencrentz wrote:Trial to give free heroin to hard-core addicts

JUSTINE HUNTER

VICTORIA — From Monday's Globe and Mail, Monday, Jun. 01, 2009 04:12AM EDT

Two hundred drug addicts in Montreal and Vancouver will be lining up for free heroin later this year at publicly funded clinics. And they can thank the federal Conservative government, despite its hard line against hard drugs.
The trial - which will offer the drug in pill and injectable forms as well - builds on a similar heroin experiment last year that found most participants committed far fewer crimes and their physical and mental health improved.
The three-year medical trial will put Canada on the leading edge of international addictions research "for a population that is in desperate need for alternate health options," said Michael Krausz, the lead investigator.
But the project is only proceeding with the blessing of, and $1-million in funding from, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, an agency of Health Canada.
The federal Conservative government is currently fighting Vancouver's supervised-injection facility, Insite, in court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has argued that taxpayer money should not fund drug use, but should be spent on prevention and treatment.
The heroin trial goes even further than Insite, not only providing a safe place to inject, but also the heroin itself.
The drug is legally purchased in Europe and brought to Canada under armed guard.
The trial is called SALOME, the Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness, and it will build on a similar heroin experiment that wrapped up last summer. The North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) was also funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research with the approval of Health Canada.
The NAOMI trial was criticized by some addictions physicians but drew no comment from the federal government, which paid more than $8-million for the research.
"It's been disappointing," said Martin Schechter, who led NAOMI and is also working on SALOME. Dr. Schechter said European health authorities are very interested in the work, but Canadian authorities will not acknowledge it.

Wow, this is so un-Conservative

So now the government is becoming a drug-dealer.

Great...THAT'S what I want my tax dollars going towards...buying drugs for degenerates.

I'd rather buy them a bullet.

This is totally ridiculous. Whats next a safe place to beat your wife without being charged, then the next step they even supply the wife?

The aim is to save tax payers money. Alot of junkies commit crime to get cash to get a fix. If they take away the criminal element they save tons on propery damage, court costs and policing costs, etc. Some of the people in the study actually got jobs, because they no longer have to spend all day trolling for there next hit. This treatment is gaining popularity in Europe for a reason. Maybe society needs to start thinking a little more progresivley. Drug laws are silly to begin with.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p04s02-woam.html

I guess we need to start supplying free booze and food and fast cars too..cant have people commiting crimes for them..

The drugs are currently "illegal" (please dont get into the definition of legal) the government should not be supporting a program it deems as illegal nor should it be supporting getting people stoned. Programs to help people beat addictions? sure, actually giving them the drug? Ffuck that sh1t.

Exactly my point.
It's illegal to shoot people too...but much cheaper than handing out drugs.
If they are addicts...they either need to get help (for which there are already programs), and they probably don't want help or they would have joined a program.
Or, they are going to die of an overdose or committing a crime anyway...so if they are so desperate they will come to the government for drugs...then when they show up...just shoot them.

It will save the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, as there will no longer be a need for the drugs, or the programs, crime will STOP, vandalism will STOP...and those who actually want help might actually be "scared straight" into quitting.

Everybody wins...except the ILLEGAL drug dealers who will no longer have customers.

AGEsAces wrote:Exactly my point.
It's illegal to shoot people too...but much cheaper than handing out drugs.
If they are addicts...they either need to get help (for which there are already programs), and they probably don't want help or they would have joined a program.
Or, they are going to die of an overdose or committing a crime anyway...so if they are so desperate they will come to the government for drugs...then when they show up...just shoot them.

It will save the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, as there will no longer be a need for the drugs, or the programs, crime will STOP, vandalism will STOP...and those who actually want help might actually be "scared straight" into quitting.

Everybody wins...except the ILLEGAL drug dealers who will no longer have customers.

Yes cause shooting people is the answer to society's ills. :usa:

depending on who you are shooting, indeed it is

Bartron wrote:Yes cause shooting people is the answer to society's ills. :usa:

Or hanging, or beheading, or lethal injection.

Shooting is just the cheapest...don't have to build a gallows, or guillotine, and lethal injection just takes too long.

I know I sound callous, and maybe I am...but I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of the crying over the scum who are unwilling to help themselves.

I've seen lives ruined because some drug addict is so desperate to get their next fix...that they will kill other people for $20 or less. For what? a quick high? with no regards for whoever it is they've attacked? and no remorse!!!

If an addict truly wants help...they will seek it...or they will help themselves. And in that case...by all means...let's help them. Let's put programs together to assist those who WILL help themselves.

My callousness has NOTHING to do with money, or taxes, or even the government (in this case). It has to do with perception. My perception of these lowlifes is that they have NO...and I'll repeat that NO respect for anyone else...not even themselves!!! They will lie, cheat, steal, kill just to get their next fix...and they don't care who they hurt or what they damage in the process.

So my attitude towards them is no different. I have no respect for anyone who is unwilling (I'll clarify that...UNWILLING NOT UNABLE) to help themselves. An an addict is strictly UNWILLING...because ANYONE can say "NO"...it's just a matter of willpower and tolerance.

My sister was hit by a drunk driver who fled the scene, and then once charged with the crime, fled the state to avoid prosecution. We tracked her with a PI who found out she had wrapped her car around a tree in FL while driving drunk, and was killed. My only response...why couldn't she have done that BEFORE she hit my sister? Cause removing her from society would've been a benefit to everyone.

DeanK- I like your idea about free booze and free food, not two shure about fast cars!
What about the "viagara" comment from the other thread? Did we finish discussing that?
This idea to treat drug abusers is a very good idea, and one that would save money if you addup all the costs.
Similarly free booze and food is another thing to be discussed! it could work out! , especially if you are continually hungry, like many on social assisstance are!

Hey....uh, if someone is handing out fast cars for free.....umm...well, ya see....I have a bit of a fast car problem....

A problem in that....well....I sold my fast car,..... and I'd like another.

Could, ya help a guy down on his...uh....lack of a fast car?

There is always a chance we can be wrong , in that case we make it life truly , 25 yrs no parole chance hope or whatever . After that you maybe can have one parole hearing , if you are a sexual , rapist , or a pedophile criminal you stay till you die .
Take away the YJA as it is a joke from some Liberal mind and a lazy parent . Children are learning that crime pays .

DeanK- what information can you provide regarding a safe place to beat your wife?

at checkers? There is no safe place, she will always hold it against you.

AGEsAces wrote:So my attitude towards them is no different. I have no respect for
anyone who is unwilling (I'll clarify that...UNWILLING NOT UNABLE) to
help themselves. An an addict is strictly UNWILLING...because ANYONE
can say "NO"...it's just a matter of willpower and tolerance.

I'm afraid you're terribly wrong there. It's tremendously easy for someone who has never been addicted to something like heroin to say it's all about willpower and tolerance. It's not. Addiction isn't simply lack of willpower.

Addiction is the mental condition where all reason goes out the window. It's like expecting someone with paranoid scizophrenia to relax and calling it a matter of willpower. If it were, it wouldn't be paranoid scizophrenia.

Same with addiction. If it were only a matter of willpower, it wouldn't be addiction, it would just be a lack of willpower.

Unfortunately, the public's perception of addiction is so tremendously naive that it's difficult to put into words. And yes, AGEsAces, I was calling your view naive. It's not that simple and anyone who thinks it is simply does not understand the clinical mental condition classified as addiction.

This is the best thing that can possibly be done to help the fight against drug addiction. Addicts do not have empathy for other people, and they lie, cheat, steal and hurt other people because they are literally insane. You and I would do exactly the same, and that's why these drugs are so horrible. They destroy the very mind from within.

It's not realistic to expect people to just get their act together when they're addicted to something like heroin: That has been tried for over a century and it has never, ever, ever worked and never, ever ever will! If you simply don't care about the problem, then fine, go on about personal responsibility and all that crap, but if you want actual solutions, you're going to have to open your mind a bit.

Addiction is not just lack of respect for others. It is a serious mental condition, in which is included the abandonment of reason itself. You cannot expect a retard to make rational decisions, you cannot expect a paranoid scizophrenic to relax, and you cannot expect an addict to "just say no". It's as naive as it gets and only goes to show that you don't even understand the very concept of addiction.

Supervised injection has repeatedly shown itself to be the best thing a society can do to reduce drug addiction. The thing is, when it's unsupervised, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, the addicts are not doing anything rational at all. They take unclean drugs, they take too much, and they do it in unsafe environments. Supervised injections ensure the correct amount to merely keep the person from feeling like hell, and gives them the mental capacity to rationally think about their circumstances.

Only when addicts have professional, supervised injections can words like "choice" and "willpower" be taken seriously when it comes to addiction. Until that happens, choice and willpower have nothing to do with it.

Drug addiction by its very definition is a state of complete insanity and you cannot expect insane people to behave as if they weren't, no matter what your personal experiences are or what your views are on personal responsibility, willpower and so forth.

Sorry.

Naive...I am not.

I've worked with addictive people, I've LIVED with addicted people.
I've seen alcoholism, drug abuse, first hand.

And everything I said before is correct. It's the liberal whiners who believe you can actually help these drug-addicts and "coax" them into society. To ween them off their drug addictions by catering to their addiction and trying to "control" their habits.

It doesn't work. What it MAY do, is provide enough clarity for a few people to realize they need to get off the drugs...to which point those addicts have now fallen into my explanation of "WANTING" to do something, and "CHOOSING" to act and impose their willpower.

But most drug addicts have those moments of clarity anyway...many times. Between their "highs & lows" they tell themselves "that's enough"...but until they come forward and ask for help...they will NEVER get off the roller-coaster. And by the government handing out "free drugs"...they could quite possibly be extending that torture, because now they are telling these addicts it's OK to continue...and that SOMEBODY ELSE is taking the responsibility for their stupidity.

And yes...it's stupidity. It's VERY rare (and I mean less than 1%) of the people who have been FORCED to get on drugs. At the beginning, they all had a choice. At the beginning, their was a moment of "I know this is wrong...but maybe..." or "Yeah...but I can handle it..." But it's basically just stupidity.

Now the government is going to come out and say "Hey...it's ok...it's not your fault...so kids...go ahead and do drugs...and we'll even buy them for you...cause you don't need to live up to your own responsibilities."

I know what the rationale is for addicts. I know what they are (and aren't) thinking. And I know that as torturous as it may sound, the only 100% way ANY addict is going to quit, is when they make the decision that it's time. And then (and only then) should the bleeding hearts step in and try to save them. But even then, that addict will go through IMMENSE pain and suffering before they'll get clean. It's not an easy road...but it's one they will stick with (most of the time) once they get through it.

AGEsAces wrote:Naive...I am not.

I maintained that your view is naive. I'm sorry, it came out wrong. I don't think you're naive, just this particular view you have.

AGEsAces wrote:I've worked with addictive people, I've LIVED with addicted people.
I've seen alcoholism, drug abuse, first hand.

Me too, and that is not an argument for or against the position of supervised injection. Just because you know a bunch of people with cancer doesn't mean you know what the proper treatment is. I don't use my (vast) experience with addicts as an argument because it's irrelevant. It says nothing about the validity of your or my views on how to deal with the problem.

AGEsAces wrote:And everything I said before is correct. It's the liberal whiners who believe you can actually help these drug-addicts and "coax" them into society. To ween them off their drug addictions by catering to their addiction and trying to "control" their habits.

And what's the alternative? What do you suggest we do to actually combat the problem? Do the same thing that hasn't done squat for the past century?

AGEsAces wrote:It doesn't work. What it MAY do, is provide enough clarity for a few people to realize they need to get off the drugs...to which point those addicts have now fallen into my explanation of "WANTING" to do something, and "CHOOSING" to act and impose their willpower.

It works by providing that clarity. And yes, it does work. The experience from supervised injections is overwhelmingly that people get a chance to not enter the frenzy of coming down. They get just enough to stay in the state where they indeed do want to get off of the drugs. We totally agree that people who don't want to get off the drugs don't stand a snowball's chance in hell, but those who do, lose control when they need their fix. That's why it's called a fix, that's why it's called addiction. It's not enough to want to get off of drugs during the moments their heads are clear, they have to have their heads clear for a very long time in order to be able to. They enter a state of mental frenzy... if your experience with addicts is as you say it is (which I don't doubt), you should agree on this point.

AGEsAces wrote:But most drug addicts have those moments of clarity anyway...many times. Between their "highs & lows" they tell themselves "that's enough"...but until they come forward and ask for help...they will NEVER get off the roller-coaster. And by the government handing out "free drugs"...they could quite possibly be extending that torture, because now they are telling these addicts it's OK to continue...and that SOMEBODY ELSE is taking the responsibility for their stupidity.

Yes, virtually all drug addicts have those moments of clarity. But moments are not enough. They need a prolonged moment of clarity which they don't have when they find themselves stuck in the flames of hell, trying to think of anything else than the only thing they can imagine doing... more drugs.

AGEsAces wrote:And yes...it's stupidity. It's VERY rare (and I mean less than 1%) of the people who have been FORCED to get on drugs. At the beginning, they all had a choice. At the beginning, their was a moment of "I know this is wrong...but maybe..." or "Yeah...but I can handle it..." But it's basically just stupidity.

Of course it's stupid to start. But once you're addicted, intelligence isn't going to save you. It's a pretty harsh punishment for what is, in the end of the day, a perfectly human mistake. Please, get off of your high, conservative horse.

AGEsAces wrote:Now the government is going to come out and say "Hey...it's ok...it's not your fault...so kids...go ahead and do drugs...and we'll even buy them for you...cause you don't need to live up to your own responsibilities."

Leave it to conservatives to think that social policy is to be based on what the "government is saying" or some "government message". Drug addicts don't go by what the government tells them, nor do I, nor do independent adults more generally. The government is a system, not some tutoring, nurturing, caring teacher of life.

AGEsAces wrote:I know what the rationale is for addicts. I know what they are (and aren't) thinking. And I know that as torturous as it may sound, the only 100% way ANY addict is going to quit, is when they make the decision that it's time.

Obviously that's a prerequisite, but it's just not enough.

AGEsAces wrote:And then (and only then) should the bleeding hearts step in and try to save them. But even then, that addict will go through IMMENSE pain and suffering before they'll get clean. It's not an easy road...but it's one they will stick with (most of the time) once they get through it.

I find it tremendously curious that conservatives use the accusation of compassion as if it's a bad thing. Are we or are we not trying to reduce human misery here? Is human misery not the problem here? And you're terribly, horribly, insanely wrong on them sticking to it most of the time. 95% of attempts of quitting fail miserably and that's exactly why addiction is classified as a mental illness... insanity.

I'll simplify a couple of things here because it needs to be simple.

Most real addicts start young (very young). And those youth look at the government and society in general for guidance. They see the politicians coming forward (people they are taught to look up to) and say "let's give out drugs to drug addicts...because the addicts need some help".

So quite simply in that young person's mind...they say "well, if the government is handing out drugs, to help keep the addicts high...then being high must be ok...so I guess I can try it".

This answers several of your questions actually.
1) I'm not conservative, I'm not liberal...probably the closest you could peg me is "Libertarian", but even that isn't accurate. Basically I say if you want to do drugs...go do them. But you'll suffer the consequences on your own...and don't expect me to come bail you out. But if you ask for my help...and really want help...I'll be there till you're "clean".
2) NO...it's 100% NOT about ending human suffering. It has nothing to do with suffering. Human suffering is living in an area where you CAN'T feed yourself, or you CAN'T get clothing. I'll stick strictly with Canada and/or the US where MILLIONS of dollars of food are thrown in the trash every day. There SHOULD be no suffering. Drug addicts (while mentally distracted) are not suffering...they are making the choice every time they stick that needle in, or take that puff. They communicate with language, and direct control of their actions. Does an addict coming off a high who's detoxing suffer pain? anguish? emotional distress? ABSOLUTELY...but that's NOT "human suffering"...that's biological reaction...and something they WILL have to go through if they are to get out of their addiction anyway.

And to address your "95% of attempts". There's no such thing. Either they quit, or they don't.
It's not an "attempt" at quitting. It's a failure if they don't...a question would be asked why they failed.
A high-jumper either clears the bar, or he doesn't. If he hits the bar, it's still a failure, and a question has to be asked why they couldn't get over the top?
So why did the addict not get clean and quit? Were they not ready? Was their support system not strong enough?

Please don't misunderstand. Yes, I believe there should be programs available for addicts. Places for them to turn to when they do need help (medical, food, etc.) But like any social assistance program, it should be required that they EARN what they take. Cleaning, Laundry, Dishes, counseling...something to help offset the cost of providing for them. And there should be evaluations of them...for study (to help prevent others from reaching that same point), for signs of recovery, and to have someone there for when that person feels they are ready to quit...a support system is there which can guide them through and offer support.

But...as I said in a previous post...there are some who you KNOW will never ask...and who never have remorse for where they are. But they are a threat to themselves and society...and there should be a system for dealing with them as well, which removes them from being a threat any longer...to anyone...because they are a useless member of society...and no longer deserving of the care and understanding.

So quite simply in that young person's mind...they say "well, if the government is handing out drugs, to help keep the addicts high...then being high must be ok...so I guess I can try it".

You're not serious are you?

Do or Do Not there is no try!

"But...as I said in a previous post...there are some who you KNOW will never ask...and who never have remorse for where they are. But they are a threat to themselves and society...and there should be a system for dealing with them as well, which removes them from being a threat any longer...to anyone...because they are a useless member of society...and no longer deserving of the care and understanding."

Yup, many many many people dont want to be off drugs or off the street or off alcohol. I tire of the people who says "there should be no homelessness" thats impossible. Wth any "home" you give the "homeless" for free you will most certainly implement some base rules, some may indeed follow your rules. Others well they enjoy pissing on the bed they sleep on or stabbing their buddy for his bottle. What??!?! thats against the rules?

JTF wrote:

So quite simply in that young person's mind...they say "well, if the government is handing out drugs, to help keep the addicts high...then being high must be ok...so I guess I can try it".

You're not serious are you?

You don't think that's how they think?
Do you have children?

Anyone with children would know that...because kids WANT to be like their parents. They WANT to do what the "grownups" do or say is ok.

Despite the idea that teens/youth want to rebel against everything...that's not true. What most of them really want is to be respected and treated like adults...because they always feel they are older than they really are.

Perhaps you can remember when you were a kid...and your parents would do stuff, and you'd want to do it too...but they'd say..."no...you're too young". But you'd think "but if they can do it...why can't I"?

It's one of the basic elements of the human psyche...and applies to everyone...everywhere.

I have kids and I very much doubt that their brains are thinking that way.

AGEsAces wrote:I'll simplify a couple of things here because it needs to be simple.

Agreed. I'll try to contain myself.

AGEsAces wrote:
Most real addicts start young (very young).

You hit the nail on the head. Therefore the whole "choice" argument is sort of flawed because the mistake is made early on, but the consequences stay for life.

And the idea that addiction is not human misery... okay, NOW I'm starting to seriously doubt that you've really lived with and worked with addicts. I don't know what to say to that, frankly.

AGEsAces wrote:
And those youth look at the government and society in general for guidance. They see the politicians coming forward (people they are taught to look up to) and say "let's give out drugs to drug addicts...because the addicts need some help".

What?!? Okay, seriously, think about this. Have you ever, ever, ever, ever, ever met or raised a person who would do drugs because of drug therapy? Do you know people who don't mind getting cancer because the government provides treatment? Again you seem to confuse parenting with governing. The government doesn't function as a parent, neither in theory nor in practice. It's not a caring, loving big version of yourself... it's a system composed of paperwork of legal theory. Children are not making decisions on whether to use drugs based on what kind of therapy is provided. The idea that they would sounds, with all due respect, patently absurd to me.

Anecdote on the comparison to cancer: cancer is treated with cancer-causing methods. The idea is to kill the body slowly enough to kill the cancer first through radiation and drug therapy. Ironically, the same thing causes cancer which is most likely to kill cancer cells, which is why cancer therapy is such a tricky thing.

Now, would you honestly, or your children, all of a sudden not mind getting cancer?

The reason people use drugs are as follows.
1. They're curious.
2. They don't believe what they're told about them.
3. They over-estimate their own mental abilities of "willpower", the same mistake your view seems to be based on. (Ironic, ain't it? Your view is essentially "I could quit whenever I wanted")

AGEsAces wrote:
Please don't misunderstand. Yes, I believe there should be programs available for addicts. Places for them to turn to when they do need help (medical, food, etc.) But like any social assistance program, it should be required that they EARN what they take. Cleaning, Laundry, Dishes, counseling...something to help offset the cost of providing for them.

I really don't think we'll have any positive impact on drug addiction without social spending. I'm sorry, it just doesn't sound realistic to me. If you don't want to spend money on this problem, it's not going away, it will just go where it has always gone, and that's up. You won't save money by being robbed by street junkies, either. With people on the exactly right amount of their fix, not enough to get them high but just enough to keep them sane, they're quite unlikely to rob you.

Wooff, I said I was going to contain myself. FAIL, I guess.