Giving drugs to drug addicts

[Musopticon?]

"And that helps addicts out how? Or are you looking at this from a strictly financial point of view?"

 

You can actually live a quite productive life and hold down a job while being a user, what destroys people are the things they have to do to get the drug, and the impure and imminently more dangerous versions of the drug available at your local pusher. The greater part of the vast ammounts saved by just giving pure medical variants could be chanelled into early prevention and treatment, and you would still save money while avoiding the criminilisation and suffering of the current state of affairs.

 

It would be important here to differentiate the really dangerous drugs, crack, meth, etc - those that cause permantent brain and nervous system damage - from those whose criminalisation is more a cultural phenomenon than a health risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry dudes, as the son of a now sober alcoholic, and having grown up hanging out with his buddies from AA, I'm gonna have to side with Hades on this. Discuss the financial benefits all you want, but giving drugs to an addict is no way to solve their problems, just prolong them. An addict has to hit bottom to want to clean up their life, that generally involves some ugly ****.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, I know broken homes just like the next member. I trust that you know the effects an addiction can have much better first hand than me. However, I wasn't arguing that you could somehow solve the drug problem with controlled drugs. I'm simply explaining the fact that clean conditions are a great thing. Less diseases and bad blood. Also, you can monitor drug use of regular drugpoint goers at least somewhat. People die less, right?

 

As for addiction being mental defect; can you link me with anything? You do know that all of us have mental problems if that's true? :D

Edited November 22, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Sand]

Its only a mental defect if they are self destructive addictions. REALLY!

[Fenghuang]

"

You are so f***ing wrong I don't even know where to begin. Sure, you can hold down a job, for awhile at least. You home life's gonna go to pieces, and sooner or later your addictions gonna catch up with you, but yeah,you can hold it together for awhile, especially if you're clever and above all a good liar. My old man managed to keep it together for 20 years before his alcoholism caught up with him."

 

Alchohol isen't illegal. They tried that, didn't work out so well. In the case of alchoholism you have a condition that is potentially fatal, and certainly ruins lives, that however does not mean that the majority cannot use alchohol and suffer no ill effects.

 

So, what would be wrong with increased prevention and treatment for alchoholism ?  :S

 

Shot and miss, I should think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah because illegal narcotics totally aren't potentially fatal when abused.

[Musopticon?]

How much did you weigh again? Do you have any social relations outside internet and work? I'd say that internet is a pretty serious addiction.

 

Edit: That was to Hades, sorry Jim.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Fenghuang]

"And that helps addicts out how? Or are you looking at this from a strictly financial point of view?"

 

You can actually live a quite productive life and hold down a job while being a user, what destroys people are the things they have to do to get the drug, and the impure and imminently more dangerous versions of the drug available at your local pusher. The greater part of the vast ammounts saved by just giving pure medical variants could be chanelled into early prevention and treatment, and you would still save money while avoiding the criminilisation and suffering of the current state of affairs.

 

It would be important here to differentiate the really dangerous drugs, crack, meth, etc - those that cause permantent brain and nervous system damage - from those whose criminalisation is more a cultural phenomenon than a health risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry dudes, as the son of a now sober alcoholic, and having grown up hanging out with his buddies from AA, I'm gonna have to side with Hades on this. Discuss the financial benefits all you want, but giving drugs to an addict is no way to solve their problems, just prolong them. An addict has to hit bottom to want to clean up their life, that generally involves some ugly ****.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, I know broken homes just like the next member. I trust that you know the effects an addiction can have much better first hand than me. However, I wasn't arguing that you could somehow solve the drug problem with controlled drugs. I'm simply explaining the fact that clean conditions are a great thing. Less diseases and bad blood. Also, you can monitor drug use of regular drugpoint goers at least somewhat. People die less, right?

 

As for addiction being mental defect; can you link me with anything? You do know that all of us have mental problems if that's true? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'll get my dad to hook me up with the actual classification in the DSM next time I talk with him. He's a head doctor intern now and better able to source such claims than me, plus it's been a year since I took Psychology 101 and Behavioral Development; whereas he's studying for the state exams right now.

 

How much did you weigh again? Do you have any social relations outside internet and work? I'd say that internet is a pretty serious addiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:'(

Edited November 22, 2006 by Fenghuang

[alanschu]

Sorry dudes, as the son of a now sober alcoholic, and having grown up hanging out with his buddies from AA, I'm gonna have to side with Hades on this. Discuss the financial benefits all you want, but giving drugs to an addict is no way to solve their problems, just prolong them. An addict has to hit bottom to want to clean up their life, that generally involves some ugly ****.

 

What about the family that suffers through their son getting murdered, because some junkie needed some extra cash for his fix?

[Fenghuang]

Sorry dudes, as the son of a now sober alcoholic, and having grown up hanging out with his buddies from AA, I'm gonna have to side with Hades on this. Discuss the financial benefits all you want, but giving drugs to an addict is no way to solve their problems, just prolong them. An addict has to hit bottom to want to clean up their life, that generally involves some ugly ****.

 

What about the family that suffers through their son getting murdered, because some junkie needed some extra cash for his fix?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I send them my condolences.

[Gorgon]

"Yeah because illegal narcotics totally aren't potentially fatal when abused."

 

There is hardly anything that isen't dangerous when abused, eat enough carrots and you could die of vitamin E poisoning.

 

The comparison with alchoholsim is hardly valid across the range of leisure drugs, legal or otherwise.

[Surreptishus]

Yeah, the main point of this idea proposed by the police officer is to curb the criminal aspects of addiction. Things such as robbery burglary and murder.

 

the treatment would cost

Edited November 22, 2006 by Surreptishus

[alanschu]

I send them my condolences.

Yes, I'm sure that makes everything all right. So not only does the junkie STILL get their fix, other people have to needlessly suffer along side them.

 

The reason why they "give" the drugs to the addict isn't to "solve their problems" (in your words), nor is it even to save money.

[Fenghuang]

I send them my condolences.

Yes, I'm sure that makes everything all right. So not only does the junkie STILL get their fix, other people have to needlessly suffer along side them.

 

The reason why they "give" the drugs to the addict isn't to "solve their problems" (in your words), nor is it even to save money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I understand that and if you backtrack a little bit you'll see that I never tried to argue that, well I did admit the financial benefits but I digress.

 

What I took exception to was the people in this thread saying that this was a good fix. It's not. They're still gonna be destroying their lives and those around them, just in more subtle, emotional, less violent crime statistic ways.

[Surreptishus]

What I took exception to was the people in this thread saying that this was a good fix.  It's not.  They're still gonna be destroying their lives and those around them, just in more subtle, emotional, less violent crime statistic ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think its because people need to be clear on which drugs they are talking about. I am not stating that there is any such thing as a "safe drug" but there is a scale, when taking into account addictiveness, physical and psychological long term effects and effects on wider society. Heroin is on an extreme end of that scale.

[Walsingham]

There is no Hades any more gentlemen. Show some decorum.

~~

I know from personal experience, having had close friends go through heroin and cocaine addiction, that drug addiction isn't only about the criminality. But I also know that it being illegal only makes it more expensive, not harder to get. I could walk out of my office and score drugs in any town in the UK in one hour, from a standing start.

 

The fact that the drugs cost so much money means a few things to me:

1) To get their drugs, addicts commit crimes, taking up all of their time. All the clean addicts I know only quit when they had a stable supply for cheap, not an unstable supply they had to clock to get.

2) To get the drugs, addicts commit crimes. They steal, they engage in reckless prostitution, they commit acts of violence and destruction. They commit these crimes at a cost to society many times the value of the drugs they consume, which are expensive in themselves.

3) The drugs they receive are of dubious quality and consumed with minimal expense spared for safe equipment.

 

If you give the stuff away for nothing/at cost it is my belief that while you might see a rise in the number of people taking them you would also see some advantages.

 

1) Our police would be freed up to tackle other crimes than a war on drugs they are frankly incapable of winning.

2) Those who are addicted would cease to commit crimes to support their habit.

3) The organisations that supply the drugs would go bankrupt practically overnight. That means no more FARC, Sendero Luminoso, Burmese Junta, Taliban so on and so forth. Or at least what would remain would be crippled.

 

The cost in financial terms is really peanuts. A heavy heroin user will struggle to put away more than a kilo a year (actually they'd die). But that's barely

[alanschu]

What I took exception to was the people in this thread saying that this was a good fix. It's not. They're still gonna be destroying their lives and those around them, just in more subtle, emotional, less violent crime statistic ways.

 

And I took exception to the fact that you got pissed off because of the personal significance it had in your life, while at the same time doing nothing more than offering "condolences" because someone suffered in a way that you didn't.

 

 

Many of the comments I've seen elsewhere say they are revolted by giving addicts free stuff.

 

I think the issue is that people feel that if we're giving it away, then that must mean we are condoning their use.

[Surreptishus]

If you give the stuff away for nothing/at cost it is my belief that while you might see a rise in the number of people taking them you would also see some advantages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At the moment the officer suggest that only addicts involved in massive levels of crime would be eligible for the treatment, so is it not possible that addicts may start committing more crimes in an effort to get the free heroin?

[Kor Qel Droma]

heh, where's the free drugs? England?

[Gorgon]

They did a trial in Holland, of course, and the experience was that all the hard core users who partook reported improvements in their everyday lives, many were able to have jobs for the first time in decades.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Gorgon

[Fenghuang]

What I took exception to was the people in this thread saying that this was a good fix. It's not. They're still gonna be destroying their lives and those around them, just in more subtle, emotional, less violent crime statistic ways.

 

And I took exception to the fact that you got pissed off because of the personal significance it had in your life, while at the same time doing nothing more than offering "condolences" because someone suffered in a way that you didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FFS alan, the only reason I offered that sappy condolences post after your own was because I took you for being facetious because of the sarcastic little smiley.

 

Honestly I was only offering up the anecdotal evidence because I know the opinions of a lot of alcoholics and addicts of heavier stuff on what helped them stop, what made them realize what they'd done to their lives, etc. As far as abuse from my own father, it's pretty much the most lackluster addicted parent story evar. He went dry when I was five and before that all he did was buy a bottle of wine, down it, go into an alcoholic blackout and then sleep until the next morning. He never had hangovers, he was never abusive towards me, I didn't even know he was drinking. But that was the entire problem because he was lying to everyone, and the deception between him and my mom was destroying their relationship. He stopped after he got a DUI with my little sister in his car on his way to pick me up from school. It was the first and last time he didn't drink with the intention to just fall asleep and forget his troubles.

 

I am okay with the posts about how it would help society economically, free up police officers, junk like that; but don't try and say it's a solution for the addictions because only the addicts can solve that for themselves. To steal Gorgon's turn of phrase from the discussion we were having about education, it's just a band aid. A makeover for the external and most visible side effects of substance abuse at best.

[alanschu]

They did a trial in Holland, of course, and the experience was that all the hard core users who partook reported improvements in their everyday lives, many were able to have jobs for the first time in decades.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A citation would be exceptionally helpful.

 

 

FFS alan, the only reason I offered that sappy condolences post after your own was because I took you for being facetious because of the sarcastic little smiley.

 

It wasn't a sarcastic smiley. It was the "shifty" smiley because I thought your comments were rather limited in their scope. In the future I suppose I'll refrain from posting smileys when a comment appalls me.

 

 

But that was the entire problem because he was lying to everyone, and the deception between him and my mom was destroying their relationship.

 

It seems to me that in order to get the free stuff, you have to be pretty open about the fact you're an addicted heroin user.

 

 

I am okay with the posts about how it would help society economically, free up police officers, junk like that; but don't try and say it's a solution for the addictions because only the addicts can solve that for themselves.

 

Did anyone really say that it would solve the problem? Though perhaps it could open up avenues to help solve the problem. A place like a clinic that provides the drugs could just as easily provide addicts with information about where they can go and what they can do if they do want to kick the habit. I'm not a big drug user, but I suspect the drug dealer on the street isn't too interested in you kicking your habit, so it may be somewhat difficult to get that information out of him.

[Fenghuang]

FFS alan, the only reason I offered that sappy condolences post after your own was because I took you for being facetious because of the sarcastic little smiley.

 

It wasn't a sarcastic smiley. It was the "shifty" smiley because I thought your comments were rather limited in their scope. In the future I suppose I'll refrain from posting smileys when a comment appalls me.

 

Most people use that smiley when they're saying something tongue in cheek as far as I can tell, so I took it that way. If you had used the <_< smiley, it would've gone a lot further to indicating resentment to me.

 

 

But that was the entire problem because he was lying to everyone, and the deception between him and my mom was destroying their relationship.

 

It seems to me that in order to get the free stuff, you have to be pretty open about the fact you're an addicted heroin user.

 

Agreed, but that was just the way it was in my house, I can pull up anecdotal evidence from other acquaintances that suffer from having parents who are addicts, hell my best friend right now has one, who while not particularly abusive are royal f***ups as parents because they can't ever remember what they've said or they're too out of their head to hold a coherent conversation.

 

 

I am okay with the posts about how it would help society economically, free up police officers, junk like that; but don't try and say it's a solution for the addictions because only the addicts can solve that for themselves.

 

Did anyone really say that it would solve the problem? Though perhaps it could open up avenues to help solve the problem. A place like a clinic that provides the drugs could just as easily provide addicts with information about where they can go and what they can do if they do want to kick the habit. I'm not a big drug user, but I suspect the drug dealer on the street isn't too interested in you kicking your habit, so it may be somewhat difficult to get that information out of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Look at the first post I made in this thread. I was quoting Gorgon. He was saying that addicts could lead productive lives. To me that is saying that being an addict is an okay thing and there is no reason to change. To me that is not okay.

 

I really don't want to pick a fight with you alan because by and large I've agreed with pretty much every post you've made in this thread. I am just not ready to say that it is acceptable to live your life in a state sanctioned drug induced coma; you'll put the poor psychiatrists out of business.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Fenghuang

[~Di]

Legalize drugs. Make them available at cost, but tax hell out of it. It'll still be cheaper and safer than street stuff. Use tax money to fund free rehab clinics. End of criminal networks selling drugs for profit.

 

You cannot legislate what people choose to put into their own bodies, whether that is alcohol, tobacco or drugs. It doesn't work, and creates vast criminal networks to support these "illegal" personal choices. We as a society need to make rehabilitation clinics for all who wish to use them (even those who cannot afford Betty Ford centers as an escape every time they are caught doing naughty things).

 

So long as societies legislate personal choice and so-called victimless crimes (yes, I know families of addicts are victims.... I'm the child of an alcoholic too) then rampant crime will follow. You'd think we'd know that by now.

[LadyCrimson]

"Fun" itself could be said to be an addiction, since in general the human race seems rather obsessed with the adrenline and psychological "rush" (or comfort...) that fun creates in our minds and bodies. Of course, what is fun to one person isn't fun to another...

 

There's the possibility that some people are wired in such a way to be more easily addicted to certain chemicals/substances - by wired I mean through chemcial imbalances or other physical qualties that differ from what is currently percieved as the physical norm for human physiology. Sometimes the visible things (downword spiral from what's considered a "healthy productive" life) could perhaps be seen more as symptoms of the hard-wired aspect of addiction rather than the other way around - and after many years, one thing feeds off another and it becomes hard to distinguish the symptom from the root cause of the problem, if that makes sense. It's hard to say for sure sometimes, chicken and egg scenario perhaps, to coin a phrase.

 

In terms of legalizing them - while I think they should be governmentally legal on the basis that it's illogical for this to be legal while that is not legal (the attempt of government to protect people from themselves is often so), realistically the legal route would only be effective in terms of stopping "drug crimes/wars" if prices were kept very cheap. It would do no good to make them legal and then end up having them be largely controlled by greedy companies or government itself who charge an arm and a leg/tax them at high rates so many still couldn't afford them. You'd then still have a black market.

 

Giving them away for free...that might help in some ways, as already noted, and would avoid the affordability issue, but then it depends a lot on the quality of the stuff being given away. If it doesn't match what users think they/know can get, there still might be an eventual black market for higher quality stuff, if you know what I mean. Still, in theory it's possible in the long run many of the 'drug-war' things would be lessened from what is current. The only way to tell would be to try it. When fear keeps us from trying things, we'll never know/learn...thus I'd be for trying it...at least in measured trials and such, then widening the scope gradually if those seem successful.

[Atreides]

I could use some grants for alcohol research on weekends.

[Colrom]

I think it is a good idea to make a variety of drugs available by perscription for registered addicts.

 

Here are some considerations:

 

* Many addicts can function reasonably well - in some cases extremely well - in society if they have a legal way to obtain their drug.

* Addicts are much less likely to be killed by drugs if they get them legally as a well defined and regulated product which includes use directions.

* Most drugs that addicts use would be dirt cheap to make and purchase if they were legalized.

* Addicts with access to legal inexpensive drugs would be less likely to commit crimes to acquire funds to purchase drugs.

* Addicts are more likely to be accessable for treatment outside of jail if they are registered and not involved in criminal activity.

* The availablility of inexpensive legal drugs will significantly reduce the value and profit potential of illegal drugs.

* The financial motivations for organized drug trafficing would be significantly reduced.

* The violence associated with organized drug trafficing would be greatly reduced.

* Unfortunately the benefits of the income available to poor folks from organized drug trafficing would also be reduced.

 

I'm sure there is more.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

The "We have to do something to help stop people getting addicted" argument doesn't work for me either. I was pondering this last night, and I recalled the fierce arguments we had in teh UK when suicide was made legal. Many moral guardians were claiming people would start killing themselevs in far greater numbers! IMO addiction to class As is a similar process to suicide.