free drugs in canada.

[Shuzzy]

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.html?id=60230b74-4140-4716-bc8d-dab295dc7846

really don't know what to say about this. :rolleyes:

[zexmarquies01]

0.o

uh...well...i guess it makes sense....sorta...in it own way...i think.

give out free drugs to addicts...so they don't steal, and cause crime....

Well, whatever works i guess. If it keeps them from breaking in and stealing someones brand new, Overclocked, Phase changed computer....then i'm all for it.

[Malpine Walis]

That looks like a variation on an experiment that has been tried in a few countries. Depending on how it is handled the sucess of the idea has ranged from a total disaster to moderately successful. It remains to be seen how it will play out this time but the numbers in that article suggest to me that it will not in the early days make a real dent in the crime rate. However, if it does help the people who get in the program to get out of the cycle they have been locked in, then I suspect that it will probably be worth taking a closer look at.

[SewerBeing]

how about great they are finally realizing a new unique way to treat them. I hope it works and humanity can show its bright side for once... what am I thinking I cant believe I just wrote that must be all the free heroin :)

[Brundle Fly]

Condoning drug abuse and supplying drugs to junkies is no solution to the problem, it's a way to hide it. Heroin kills, cocaine kills, and now the gov't says they will hand out free heroin and cocaine, to help kill the junkies. Hey, maybe that's their idea of a solution, kill the junkies, and then the problem disappears.

Tax dollars should not support some junkie's habit. I don't want my tax dollars supporting some loser. If they are whacked on heroin, obviously they're not working. Welfare is more tax dollars, so, we give them free drugs(paid for by hard working people) so they can get too wasted to work, then give them welfare(paid for by hard working people) so they can live a life of being a stoner. Yeah, so tell me, aside from the junkie, how does the majority of society benefit from this?

This is a very sad joke. :bang head

[Shuzzy]

Condoning drug abuse and supplying drugs to junkies is no solution to the problem, it's a way to hide it. Heroin kills, cocaine kills, and now the gov't says they will hand out free heroin and cocaine, to help kill the junkies. Hey, maybe that's their idea of a solution, kill the junkies, and then the problem disappears.

Tax dollars should not support some junkie's habit. I don't want my tax dollars supporting some loser. If they are whacked on heroin, obviously they're not working. Welfare is more tax dollars, so, we give them free drugs(paid for by hard working people) so they can get too wasted to work, then give them welfare(paid for by hard working people) so they can live a life of being a stoner. Yeah, so tell me, aside from the junkie, how does the majority of society benefit from this?

This is a very sad joke. :bang head

well put.

[Aphex_Tom_9]

free heroin?!?! awesometown!!!

well, let's see how it works. maybe they'll start sneaking a placebo in to wean the junkies off it...

[SewerBeing]

you are looking at this all wrong sure they are addicted to heroin which is bad. However look on the bright side they are no longer stealing money for heroin, they are no longer supporting drug dealers, no longer at risk to get HIV or AIDS. There is a bright side to this... what am I thinking stupid heroin

[Brundle Fly]

you are looking at this all wrong sure they are addicted to heroin which is bad. However look on the bright side they are no longer stealing money for heroin, they are no longer supporting drug dealers, no longer at risk to get HIV or AIDS. There is a bright side to this... what am I thinking stupid heroin

The problem with heroin and cocaine is that as time goes by, more is needed to achieve a satisfying high. This has already been proven with Methadone clinics, the junkies get their Methadone(which they are now also hooked on), and then go get heroin to enhance the high. Once these junkies aren't getting the high they want off their free hits, they'll go get more off the streets.

Then we'll be right back to square one, as the Canadian people will watch their tax dollars go sraight up some junkie's vein. Or nose, as the case may be.

This is not right, this is not where I want my tax dollars spent. If the Canadian gov't wants to help someone in need, how about instead of throwing away tax dollars on junkies, give it to our old age pensioners who are forced to subsist on $1000 a month? They deserve our tax dollars, not junkies.

[Oni]

I'm thinkin' along the same lines as Brundle Fly here. I'd rather not have my tax dollars put toward some junkie getting a fix.

I can see good in this program. I can. But I think in the end, the bad outweighs that.

In the end, it may cut down on infections due to dirty equipment, and the addicts won't be injecting themselves with Drano or baby laxitive, so they may start to get better, but in the end it's no better than a government-funded Opium House, really.

Go Canada. Woo.

[Sentential]

free heroin?!?! awesometown!!!

well, let's see how it works. maybe they'll start sneaking a placebo in to wean the junkies off it...
Or cycanide... oh whoopise poor guy oded... too bad :-/

[deRusett]

My G/fs Father is a Doctor, and has been advocating free drugs to addicts for years.

the amount of money spent on health care for addicts who get poor quality stuff, or stuff laced with different drugs is astronomical.


Now for this to "work" drug users will have to register there addiction, each time they get a fix they will have to listen to some spiel about how they should quit, and how there are programs to help them get off there addiction. We spend so much money fighting with people, and some are to scared or can't afford to come forward and say they have a problem and want help. I'm not a Drug user, but Support the idea of free drugs, to help reduce the income of organized crime, keep the drugs people take "safe" and help those with a problem get clean.

Since our country has free health care, and the Drug abusers will be a burden on the system when they get older, if there is a way to control the abuse of controlled substances I am all for it, if you have to go to a government agency to get your drugs, chances are you have thought about it, having to listen to the dangers before your first time, might keep that kid who does it because of peer pressure from doing it, no dealers pushing the drugs on you, since the dealers can’t under cut free can they.

We are a very liberal country, especially when it comes to drugs, I think the next step is to legalize Marijuana, and sell it as we do Liquor, Organized Crime is making millions off of a substance that a large minority of the population is in favour of legalizing, another minority are fence sitters, but the minority that are against it, are those whom vote, and vote regularly.

Wow I’m getting off topic here.
I’ll just say I hope the study goes well.

[Malpine Walis]

I'm thinkin' along the same lines as Brundle Fly here. I'd rather not have my tax dollars put toward some junkie getting a fix.

I can see good in this program. I can. But I think in the end, the bad outweighs that.

In the end, it may cut down on infections due to dirty equipment, and the addicts won't be injecting themselves with Drano or baby laxitive, so they may start to get better, but in the end it's no better than a government-funded Opium House, really.

Go Canada. Woo.

I understand what both you and Brundle Fly are saying. On the face of the matter, yes tax dollars are going right in the blood stream of junkies. However (and this is a big however), tax dollars are spent every day to put medications in the blood stream of sick people. It is called public funding for medications. Surely, you don't think that there is an issue per-se with handing out free drugs to sick people. It is alright when it is an elderly persons heart medication or the free insulin for a diabetic who can't afford it on their own.

Yet it becomes an issue if the free drugs are being used to help someone who is clearly part of the group that we call junkies. So it is fair game to cull out one group of people and tell them that they are bad people because you don't agree with the medical condition that they have (addiction). After all, everyone knows that they have serious moral issues and that they made themselves sick.

To a certain extent it may be true that the disease is self inflicted. However, as civilized people are we to now turn out backs on a whole class of people because they bear the taint of addiction? From time to time, we have done that to other groups and the result has always been a stain not on the group that we seek to demonize but rather it has proved to be a stain on our own character. Are we to now add junkies to the list of blacks/Jews/Irish/Italians/whatever? Or will we ever reach a point in our own social development where we can say that we have done enough of that and it is time to view the matter through new glasses?

Personally, I have my concerns with the program discussed in the linked article. Yes, there is some potential good in the program. However, if it not carefully planned, it could also result in greater harm.

A well designed program would target those who want to get off of the drugs in the first place and not just be free drugs for those who want them. However, I have to wonder how much will be addressed by simply taking the first addicts who walk in the door into the program. If continuing participation in the program was to be linked to participation in recovery programs, then the program would have a built in bias toward those who are actively working to address the nature of the medical condition. If some people think that they can get in the program just to get free drugs, let them. The option to return to a life of selling your body to any greasy perv who can wave a c-note is open if they really don't want to address the condition.

However, the street drug market is a micro economy that is subject to the law of supply and demand. If the program reduces the total number of people buying off of the pushers, then there will be a secondary effect in that the market to sell drugs becomes that much less lucrative. Five years from now, there could well be half as many pushers peddling street junk. Fewer pushers will in the long term mean that it is harder to get addictive drugs in the first place and by extension, there will be fewer new addicts to feed that particular micro economy.

Of course, they could well fail to make real treatment an option and just hand out free drugs. That basic idea has been tried in other countries and it has not proved to help anyone except for those who would have helped themselves to get off of the drugs eventually. At most, it has proved to be a safety net of sorts that if extended wide enough could reduce the local crime rate. While I am all for reducing the crime rate, I don't tend to view that as an optimum solution.

[zexmarquies01]

Nice one Malpine Walis,

you pretty much are right on this.

But as you said, they have to take the correct steps for this to actually work. And it could backfire pretty easily.

But at lest its a different approach than the normal one. Throw the people in jail. So with them in jail, who pays for their food, heating, electricity? you do, with taxes ( well those who live in canada that is )

So this really isn't spending any more money than the other option that is being used today. Plus, whenever a cop makes a drug bust, and finds heroin, then bam, free heroin to give to this program.

And i know that checking heroin to make sure its pure, not laced and stuff costs money, but they have to do it anyways, to prove that its heroin to put the person in jail.

Even if it could get just a few people off their addiction, and back into a normal life, that contributes to society, i'd say its worth a shot. thats a few less people that you have to pay to sit in jail. Plus they will work, and help the economy overall.

And good point, about the fact that pushers can't do better than free, that the demand for it from them will drop. and if the program keep going for a while, overall demand will drop. and as you said, less drugs to sell.

I don't know if this is the best option. but at least people are trying other ways to work with this problem, instead of the norm.

And even if it does fail, not all will be lost. it will help them learn more about how to deal with the problem in general. and show them what they did wrong, and help them decide the correct way to go about this

As thomas Edison said ( something sorta like this..can't remember exact quote ) " I havn't failed 10,000 times. I just found 10,000 ways that doesn't work "

[9mmCensor]

One step closer to legalization of weed. Good.

Costs of drugs.
- Police to investigate crime to pay for drugs
- Medical costs for addicts
- Private costs to people when addicts rob them to pay for drugs
- Prison for putting people away for drugs.

I think this is a forward step. Not a solution but a step on the right track.

The war on drugs didn't work (it lead to crack), maybe this will help, and at least make some areas safer.

Trainspotting (movie) rules!

[Feydd]

I say lure them in with the promise of free dope. Then throw them in a rehab center till they are off the stuff.

[sandman001]

Glad it isn't my tax dollars.

If it were my Tax dollars, I'd move. That's rediculous.

[9mmCensor]

Glad it isn't my tax dollars.

If it were my Tax dollars, I'd move. That's rediculous.
Your tax dollars payed for the war on drugs. Which didn't help at all. Actually it was good for drugs.

[qualhiveldorf]

I could understand giving the drugs out at the cost of contracting oneself to go to rehab at a designated time. Rather than just continueing the problem in a more civil way, why not provide help to the masses with programs to help them become a contributing member of society?

[Brundle Fly]

I understand what both you and Brundle Fly are saying. On the face of the matter, yes tax dollars are going right in the blood stream of junkies. However (and this is a big however), tax dollars are spent every day to put medications in the blood stream of sick people. It is called public funding for medications. Surely, you don't think that there is an issue per-se with handing out free drugs to sick people. It is alright when it is an elderly persons heart medication or the free insulin for a diabetic who can't afford it on their own.

I wish they would hand out free drugs to sick people, but they don't, the only people who get free drugs are on welfare. Case in point, the guy I work with, his stepson had a nervous breakdown. His meds? $500 a month, including the ridiculous fees for filling the prescrips. His stepson had to prove he couldn't work(although he wanted to work), so he could go on welfare, and get his meds paid for. So, what has the gov't done in its ultimate whiz-dumb? They give him $1100 a month, plus pay for his $500 meds, and he sits at home. He wants to work, but can't afford to. I've yet to see a program designed by our wonderful gov't(pick a political party, any party, all the same) that actually works as intended.

Yet it becomes an issue if the free drugs are being used to help someone who is clearly part of the group that we call junkies. So it is fair game to cull out one group of people and tell them that they are bad people because you don't agree with the medical condition that they have (addiction). After all, everyone knows that they have serious moral issues and that they made themselves sick.

Sorry, but I just can't agree that handing out free illicit drugs to junkies is helping the situation. What I got from the article is that they don't want shared needles being used, they don't want junkies hooking for their drugs, and they don't want junkies getting sick from impure drugs. The cops want to stop petty crime. No where in the article did they say they were going to offer rehab to these junkies, they actually said they hoped that because they didn't have to waste time stealing for their drugs, that they might start doing something positive with their lives.

Excuse me, you are going to give a junkie free heroin, then expect him to do something positive with his life. Seriously, what the hell is that? How can anyone with an iota of intelligence figure that a junkie, stoned on his "pure-pharmaceutical grade" heroin, will have the mental capacity to do anything at all? "We will give him free drugs to get stoned on, so he can do something positive with his life" That makes no sense whatsoever.

To a certain extent it may be true that the disease is self inflicted. However, as civilized people are we to now turn out backs on a whole class of people because they bear the taint of addiction? From time to time, we have done that to other groups and the result has always been a stain not on the group that we seek to demonize but rather it has proved to be a stain on our own character. Are we to now add junkies to the list of blacks/Jews/Irish/Italians/whatever? Or will we ever reach a point in our own social development where we can say that we have done enough of that and it is time to view the matter through new glasses?

No, I don't say we should turn our backs on them, we should help them get clean. Facilitating their addtion by offering them a purer form of the same drug that controls them now, for free, does not free them of addiction. It does, however, open up the gov't to multiple lawsuits when some junkie gets his hit at the clinic, then tops off with some street drugs, and dies from the OD. Then, the family that dis-owned him when he first became a junkie will step forward, blame everything on the gov't, win their million dollar lawsuit, and the flood gates will be opened.

Personally, I have my concerns with the program discussed in the linked article. Yes, there is some potential good in the program. However, if it not carefully planned, it could also result in greater harm.

Seems to me, there's not much planning at all. As I already stated, they aren't discussing rehab, they're hoping the junkies will have the time(now they don't have to steal or hook for their drugs) to do something positive themselves. That is just ludicrous. Vancouver is crime ridden, and handing out free drugs is the easiest way to lower the crime rate. Summer is coming, high crime rates and junkies begging for money doesn't attract tourists.

A well designed program would target those who want to get off of the drugs in the first place and not just be free drugs for those who want them. However, I have to wonder how much will be addressed by simply taking the first addicts who walk in the door into the program. If continuing participation in the program was to be linked to participation in recovery programs, then the program would have a built in bias toward those who are actively working to address the nature of the medical condition. If some people think that they can get in the program just to get free drugs, let them. The option to return to a life of selling your body to any greasy perv who can wave a c-note is open if they really don't want to address the condition.

The clinics for those who wish to end their addiction already exist, and those that really do want to end their addiction are enrolled.

However, the street drug market is a micro economy that is subject to the law of supply and demand. If the program reduces the total number of people buying off of the pushers, then there will be a secondary effect in that the market to sell drugs becomes that much less lucrative. Five years from now, there could well be half as many pushers peddling street junk. Fewer pushers will in the long term mean that it is harder to get addictive drugs in the first place and by extension, there will be fewer new addicts to feed that particular micro economy.

I beg to differ, and once again, I use the example of methadone clinics. They have done nothing to reduce illicit drugs, but they sure come in handy for the junkie who can't score his fix. Now, the methadone clinics admit that their clients are hooked on the methadone. From one addiction to the next. Others are hooked on both. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course, they could well fail to make real treatment an option and just hand out free drugs. That basic idea has been tried in other countries and it has not proved to help anyone except for those who would have helped themselves to get off of the drugs eventually. At most, it has proved to be a safety net of sorts that if extended wide enough could reduce the local crime rate. While I am all for reducing the crime rate, I don't tend to view that as an optimum solution.

I'm all for getting junkies treatment for their addictions. I'm all for lowering crime rates. I am totally against taking my tax dollars and giving them to junkies. Here in Ontario we have a health crisis. Try to find a doctor, there are none to be had, the waiting list is years long, literally, years long. Hospital beds are being shut down. Nurses are being laid off, while the federal gov't downloads more costs to the provinces. Then I, as a tax payer, and productive member of society, am told that my tax dollars will support a junkies habit, so that HOPEFULLY, he will try to do something positive with his life. Of course, he'll be stoned on drugs I bought him while he's figuring out how to be a productive member of society.

No, I want my money spent on hiring more nurses, to be spent on more hospital beds, and to be spent on keeping doctors in our own country. The "AA" handles alcoholics, I don't see the gov't setting up free bars to hand out free booze to alcoholics. I don't see them handing out free smokes to smokers. They want to legalize weed? The same group that wants to hand out free heroin also wants to hand out free cocaine? Maybe 6 months from now they'll be cooking up free rock for the crackheads too? Surreal man, I just don't get it.
:confused:

[9mmCensor]

1/ Claim to be a junky.
2/ Get free drugs.
3/ Sell drugs.
4/ Profit.

(uhh, i read too much /.)

[zip22]

i think some people are looking at it at the very surface, while others are going way deep. im curious to see what the turn out is

i can see where they're coming from though. if the junkies dont have to worry about getting drugs, they'll hopefully try to do something good. these people dont want to live like crap, they have to because of the addiction. once thats provided, it will be easier to work on improving the condition of life.

i also think drug laws and penalties in the states are completely out of whack. spend some money on schools instead of the war on drugs. maybe that will help things out.

the points brundle fry brings up are also very interesting. the claims about long doctor waits, etc are disturbing. is it like that everywhere in Canada? those seem to be some much larger issues, however. its very hard to say that the govt should spend the money on some other program, and not on another program (even though i did the same thing).

[Brundle Fly]

i think some people are looking at it at the very surface, while others are going way deep. im curious to see what the turn out is

i can see where they're coming from though. if the junkies dont have to worry about getting drugs, they'll hopefully try to do something good. these people dont want to live like crap, they have to because of the addiction. once thats provided, it will be easier to work on improving the condition of life.

i also think drug laws and penalties in the states are completely out of whack. spend some money on schools instead of the war on drugs. maybe that will help things out.

the points brundle fry brings up are also very interesting. the claims about long doctor waits, etc are disturbing. is it like that everywhere in Canada? those seem to be some much larger issues, however. its very hard to say that the govt should spend the money on some other program, and not on another program (even though i did the same thing).


Yes, it's like that everywhere in Canada, Quebec is the worst off, population wise(statistically). In Ontario, we have 21,000 doctors(that's all doctors, not just family doctors) and over 11,000,000 people. More than one million people are without a family physician, and that number is expected to rise to 2 to 5 million by 2010.

3.6 million people in Canada are without access to a family doctor, and the situation is only getting worse. Giving free drugs to junkies is an absurd idea. I am far beyond being just plain angry about this. Why should I get up and go to work in the morning, so I can pay taxes, when those taxes will give a junkie free heroin, so he can stay home and be stoned? There is no rationale behind this decision. :mad: :bang head

[Malpine Walis]

Ah, well, I did some googling and I came out to a figure of 406 patients per doctor in Quebec. Compare that to the figure you are offering that divides out to 523 for Ontario. I really don't know what to conclude from that but one point that I can observe is that the number of doctors on the other side of the country has little if any connection to programs intended to help drug addicts in Vancouver.

Yes, I am aware that zip22 asked for some numbers but at the end of the day, the health care crisis as it presents itself is something that we can rather easily cover in another thread.

Continuing further, what is the deal with the concept that all addicts are depraved individuals that want to sit at home blissed out? At most, that could be how they ended up at the bottom of society but that does not tell us what the current condition of any individual in the program may be.

Then too, if the health care system in Canada is in an acute state of crisis, how does that affect those who want treatment for any medical condition? As a psychiatric social worker dealing with the poor, I am acutely aware that when resources are insufficient for the population it is not the least amongst us who get the first services. I would view with some skepticism the idea that:



The clinics for those who wish to end their addiction already exist, and those that really do want to end their addiction are enrolled.



Rather, it seems far more likely that such programs as exist are underfunded and short of the resources that would be needed for all but a lucky few.

[krag]

Hmmmm, it may help a few stop stealing but as brundlefly already stated, the free drugs will never be enough, addiction is never satisfied with any thing, even free dope. I know from personal experience, I used to be a junkie. The way to tackle the problem is to address the real issue, the real issue is not the addiction, that is only a symptom of a deeper problem. The real problem is "emotional instability", low self esteem, fear, anger, frustration, pride, etc... When the root problem is dealt with properly the symptoms are removed as well. Can problems be removed by treating the symptoms...no, they can't. The problems themselves must be dealt with first.

I specialize in addiction recovery and have been serving in that capacity for the last 10 years.

[>HyperlogiK<]

It depends, that is the problem at an individual level, but there are often larger scale social problems that cause people to have such low self esteem, poverty, anger etc. For each addict you need to deal with the emotional problems but I think some effort needs to be made on a grander social level too. But like Malpine said the free drugs programs when handled well have had some significant short term success and may if well regulated have their place in helping addicts get out of the habit itself (as well as stemming the spread of drug related blood disease). I think 9mm is wrong (unfortunately), sorry dude you answer half of my Q's and I only ever end up criticising your posts ;) Heroin addicts aren't obvious and offensive to the middle classes (i'm not a commie) unless they are stealing/robbing so stopping them from needing to do this is 'good' as they are kept off the streets and don't offend poor young Tarqin and his parents. Young people smoking weed/taking pills however are usually signs that they do not entierly conform. So these activities have to remain illegal.

[sandman001]

Your tax dollars payed for the war on drugs. Which didn't help at all. Actually it was good for drugs.

I'd rather be attempting to stop it, than giving people drugs.

Also, what's to stop me from getting free drugs from my cousin in Canada, and selling them in the U.S. for free.

[Brundle Fly]

Ah, well, I did some googling and I came out to a figure of 406 patients per doctor in Quebec. Compare that to the figure you are offering that divides out to 523 for Ontario. I really don't know what to conclude from that but one point that I can observe is that the number of doctors on the other side of the country has little if any connection to programs intended to help drug addicts in Vancouver.

The program will be funded by Health Canada, so it affects every tax paying citizen of this country, whether they live in NFLD, Vancouver, or on Baffin Island, their tax dollars are being spent on free heroin for junkies. A full 12% of the citizens of our country, 3.6 million of them, have no access to a family doctor, and instead of attempting to solve that problem, Health Canada will be passing out free drugs. That number grows daily, as doctors retire, die, and leave for the more lucrative market in the US. There is no incentive to stay.

As a taxpayer, I believe I have a right to a family doctor, I pay their salary, yet I have no access to one. On the other hand, instead of hiring more doctors, or giving doctors incentives to stay in Canada, Health Canada has decided to spend MY money on free dope. This is not right.

Rather, it seems far more likely that such programs as exist are underfunded and short of the resources that would be needed for all but a lucky few.

If that is the case, would it not make more sense to provide additional funding to these programs, rather than funding the addiction itself with free drugs, and providing no help whatsoever? The promise of a clean needle won't make an addict want to quit, quite the contrary, he'll thank you for the free and safe drug, and get high without worrying about getting another disease.

What the gov't is saying is that they have given up, they can't stop the flow of illicit drugs, so they're going with the tide. That's it in a nutshell, and the cops sure jumped on that band-wagon fast, no the onus is now longer on them, it's all the gov't's fault. This is so ridiculous it's not even funny.

All I read was talk about stopping petty crime, why is that no serious crimes were mentioned? Do junkies not commit serious crimes while they're stoned? Watch the news, compare the serious crimes that are commited, and how many of them, especially brutal crimes, are commited while the perpetrator is on drugs. Now the gov't wants to hand out those same drugs for free. I'm happy that I have no family on the west coast, especially in Vancouver, I feel a storm coming on.

One last point here: who will accept blame when a junkie, stoned on gov't funded and distributed heroin, commits a serious crime? Will it be the junkie's fault, the gov't's fault for getting him stoned, or society's fault for allowing our gov't to start this program in the first place? I for one, want no part of it, and emphatically disagree with my tax dollars being used to fund it.

[SK8]

Also, what's to stop me from getting free drugs from my cousin in Canada, and selling them in the U.S. for free.

The threat from Allmighty america locking you up for life. The "war" on drugs is lost. America - 0 , Drugs - 1, end of story there. All the anti drug campian material is just making this whole deal worse. Let it be how its gonna be. People that are gonna do the drugs are goona do it, they have a mind set on it and thats how it is. People just dont understand how dumb they are, trying to fight personal will. America was once called the land of the free, whats soo free about it now... paranoia from "terrorists" , drug prices , drug lockups. Canada is doing a good thing here and i belive that america is just going to backlash at them. BTW im moving to canada nex summer :)!!!!!!!

[sandman001]

The threat from Allmighty america locking you up for life. The "war" on drugs is lost. America - 0 , Drugs - 1, end of story there. All the anti drug campian material is just making this whole deal worse. Let it be how its gonna be. People that are gonna do the drugs are goona do it, they have a mind set on it and thats how it is. People just dont understand how dumb they are, trying to fight personal will. America was once called the land of the free, whats soo free about it now... paranoia from "terrorists" , drug prices , drug lockups. Canada is doing a good thing here and i belive that america is just going to backlash at them. BTW im moving to canada nex summer :)!!!!!!!

Or take that approach, and instead of letting them do what they want, you cna give them incentive to destroy themselves.

[man_utd]

So apparently, Canada has decided that letting drug addicts self medicate is the best way to get them to do something with their life.

In other news, pharmacies banned from requiring prescriptions, people know how to self medicate and then blame someone else on their own.

[Brundle Fly]

I'd rather be attempting to stop it, than giving people drugs.

Also, what's to stop me from getting free drugs from my cousin in Canada, and selling them in the U.S. for free.

Unless your cousin has been a heroin junkie for the last five years and can prove that, he won't be getting free heroin. If he is a junkie, and has been for the last five years(at least), then I doubt he'll be giving his heroin away to anyone.

This won't open any new drug channels to the US, none are needed, the existing ones are doing just fine. Canada sells/trades pot to the US, and in exchange gets cocaine. Canada can grow pot freely, there's probably more grow operations right here in Simcoe County then there are in the whole of the US. The Greater Toronto Area alone has over 60,000 grow operations by last estimate.

That is a different problem altogether. The problem here is giving free drugs to junkies. I know of one instance here in Barrie that went all wrong. A woman was on Methadone to get over her heroin habit. She was given a weekly dose, which she took home with her. Her daughter came home from school one day in the fall of '03, had a headache. Mom gave her some Methadone. Mom was stoned. It didn't work at first, so mom got her to drink the rest, almost the week's supply. The kid died.

She was a friend of my oldest boy, 14 years old if I remember correctly, he told me she had a homelife that was hell.

That's what happens when junkies are given free drugs, and allowed to go out on their own, stoned, to do something positive with their lives.

No good can come of this, these idiots can't see the forest for the trees.

[felinusz]

Brundle Fly, I agree with your logic behind why this is a bad idea.

I am shocked that our government will spend money on something like this (not solving the problem, rather just delaying a solution, and annoying junkies with propoganda that they will not pay attention to or take seriously), rather then the many important social institutions that so desperately need funding in Canada.


But Brundle Fly, I also noticed that your referred to junkies as "losers".

At a certain point, the desire to stop is not enough. People need help, and cannot manage some of their problems on their own. Addiction/habituation is a great example of this.

I would never call a Heroin addict who desperately wants to stop using, a loser. Stopping is a lot harder than it sounds, and I suspect that the majority of people do not understand the force of addiction, the desire and the overwhelming need.

Addicts are human beings, like you and me. There are ex-addicts on these forums, and addicts on these forums. There are drug users, drug abusers, and 100% drug-free people on these forums.

Regardless, we are all human beings, and all of equal worth.

[Brundle Fly]

How well are these drug programs doing so far?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1101078610020&call_pageid=970599119419

Half way down the page, below "Part II"

http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htm/Marissa.htm

The case I was talking about, the girl was 13.

http://www.oacas.org/Whatsnew/newsstories/03/may/8coincidence.pdf#search='methadone%20death%20barri e%20ontario'

***EDIT***

You have to copy the last link to your browser, it's a pdf file.

[techun]

The threat from Allmighty america locking you up for life. The "war" on drugs is lost. America - 0 , Drugs - 1, end of story there. All the anti drug campian material is just making this whole deal worse. Let it be how its gonna be. People that are gonna do the drugs are goona do it, they have a mind set on it and thats how it is. People just dont understand how dumb they are, trying to fight personal will. America was once called the land of the free, whats soo free about it now... paranoia from "terrorists" , drug prices , drug lockups. Canada is doing a good thing here and i belive that america is just going to backlash at them. BTW im moving to canada nex summer :)!!!!!!!


I personally have had no effects from terrorism (except a 2 minute longer airplane wait) and drug prices or lockups..whatever that is have never effected me

I see nothing wrong with America as the average person, I do not care about the war, or drugs, because the do not effect me, When I start paying taxes maybe I will..But I am going to pay taxes no matter what, once it leaves me hands why would I care?

I see no real reason to move to canada..you want the free drugs?

I am against giving out free drugs, i say take the opposite and ban smoking

[Brundle Fly]

Brundle Fly, I agree with your logic behind why this is a bad idea.

I am shocked that our government will spend money on something like this (not solving the problem, rather just delaying a solution, and annoying junkies with propoganda that they will not pay attention to or take seriously), rather then the many important social institutions that so desperately need funding in Canada.


But Brundle Fly, I also noticed that your referred to junkies as "losers".

At a certain point, the desire to stop is not enough. People need help, and cannot manage some of their problems on their own. Addiction/habituation is a great example of this.

I would never call a Heroin addict who desperately wants to stop using, a loser. Stopping is a lot harder than it sounds, and I suspect that the majority of people do not understand the force of addiction, the desire and the overwhelming need.

Addicts are human beings, like you and me. There are ex-addicts on these forums, and addicts on these forums. There are drug users, drug abusers, and 100% drug-free people on these forums.

Regardless, we are all human beings, and all of equal worth.

I define a loser as someone who refuses help when it is offered, refuses to admit he has a problem, refuses to help himself. My father was a loser, he drank himself to death, died at the ripe old age of 52, cirrhosis of the liver, rotted it right out. He could have stopped, could have got help, but he prefered to be drunk.

Losers don't want to end their addiction, they enjoy their drugs, and see no reason to stop, even if it means death for them.

That may not be politically correct, but it is how I feel.

[felinusz]

felinusz

But Brundle Fly, I also noticed that your referred to junkies as "losers".....

.....I would never call a Heroin addict who desperately wants to stop using, a loser.

Brundle Fly

I define a loser as someone who refuses help when it is offered, refuses to admit he has a problem, refuses to help himself.....

.....Losers don't want to end their addiction, they enjoy their drugs, and see no reason to stop, even if it means death for them.

That may not be politically correct, but it is how I feel.


I agree with you on this as well actually :-/.

My apologies, I misunderstood, when you said that "junkies are losers".

I am sorry about your father. We lost a good family friend to alchohol at ~50 years of age. It was hard, but harder to know that he would have lived a long and healthy life had he worked to change his lifestyle, and accepted help from the people who cared for him and his well being. He was intelligent, skilled, and interesting. He also drank himself to death.

[Brundle Fly]

I agree with you on this as well actually :-/.

My apologies, I misunderstood, when you said that "junkies are losers".

I am sorry about your father. We lost a good family friend to alchohol at ~50 years of age. It was hard, but harder to know that he would have lived a long and healthy life had he worked to change his lifestyle, and accepted help from the people who cared for him and his well being. He was intelligent, skilled, and interesting. He also drank himself to death.

My fault, I should have made that clear, I don't think all junkies are losers, those who get help for their addiction and beat it, are winners, no doubt about that. Even if they relapse, then get help again, at least they are trying. The losers just don't give a damn.

Off topic, but addiction is addiction, so, my father's death doesn't bother me, he left when I was 4, booze was more important, my aunt(his sister) looked after him until he died, I only knew of him through her. Hardcore "junkies", be they hooked on heroin, cocaine, or booze, find their "drug" of choice far more important than anything else in life.

According to the article, they will only be handing out free heroin to those that have been junkies for at least five years. That's hardcore. Now, one of the claims they make is that the clean needles will help stop the spread of disease.

Excuse me, that is laughable, it's ludicrous to use this "reason" as justification for handing out free drugs. Any hardcore addict, that's been using for 5 years or more, most likely has every disease they could possibly ever get. Seriously, where the hell does this rationale come from? Seems they're fishing for justification, they just want to bury the problem, hide it behind a closed door, and hope it will go away.

If it doesn't go away, at least it won't be right in our faces. When a building is on fire and burning to the ground, if the fireman turn their backs, it won't put it out, nor will it make it disappear, they just won't be seeing it anymore.

What is at the root of the problem for heroin junkies? Very simple, heroin. You have to get the heroin out of their system, it's killing them. Once the heroin is gone, you have to help them keep the heroin out of their system. Heroin destroys a person's body and mind, as does cocaine and booze, damn, name a drug! Giving a junkie free heroin does nothing to make them healthier, you're giving them a drug that WILL kill them, the gov't will effectively be helping these people kill themselves. This is a gov't that will not allow assisted suicide for the chronically ill, by the way.

It just doesn't make sense. Seems to me the proponents of this program are skipping over the fact that heroin will kill these people. As a Canadian taxpayer, it's very frustrating to me, I'd rather see my tax dollars helping people, rather than helping them destroy their bodies and minds. Once their bodies are totally destroyed, who will pay for their care as they rot away in some chronic care center? The taxpayers, once again, after our taxes help destroy them, we'll help keep them alive. It's just so self-defeating, you can't solve the problem by handing out the problem, it doesn't go away.

The Canadian gov't has come up with other wonderful schemes to make our country better, for instance, the poverty level. At one time, Canada was at the top of the list of countries with very few people living below the poverty level. As time went on, we continued to drop down the list, more and more Canadians were living below the poverty line. The gov't, in its infinite whiz-dumb(as with this heroin program) came up with a solution. Although I don't recall the exact figures, this is basically what they did:

The poverty line was drawn at $20,000 a year for a couple with one child. Far too many people lived below this line. To fix this, the gov't reset the poverty line to $17,000 a year, for a couple with one child. Instant success! Suddenly, our statistics looked better, not as many people lived below the poverty line. This did not solve the problem with poverty, but it sure did look better on paper. Burying/hiding a problem does not solve it.

[Ebola]

Canada signed the Kyoto Agreement which just went into effect so expect more people to lose their jobs and the cost of energy to skyrocket.

[Brundle Fly]

More whiz-dumb from the Canadian gov't, at least they're consistent. :bang head

Personally, I was looking forward to a warmer climate in Canada. :D

[krag]

What is at the root of the problem for heroin junkies? Very simple, heroin. You have to get the heroin out of their system, it's killing them. Once the heroin is gone, you have to help them keep the heroin out of their system. Heroin destroys a person's body and mind, as does cocaine and booze, damn, name a drug! Giving a junkie free heroin does nothing to make them healthier, you're giving them a drug that WILL kill them, the gov't will effectively be helping these people kill themselves. This is a gov't that will not allow assisted suicide for the chronically ill, by the way.

You are contradicting yourself here. It is not "very simple." If it were there would be no drug problem in Canada or the USA. The root problem is not the drugs as I stated earlier. If you remove the root problem, then...the problem should go away. But...you said this, "Once the heroin is gone, you have to help them keep the heroin out of thier system." Why would you still be dealing with the problem of "keeping the heroin out of thier system" if the "root problem" was already dealt with?

A.A & N.A. claim a 2-3% success rate, they are supposed to be the experts at addcition recovery. If it were very simple, the rate would be 80 - 90% not 2-3%. The thing about addiction is you can only help those who want help. You cannot force someone to get straight.

[Brundle Fly]

You are contradicting yourself here. It is not "very simple." If it were there would be no drug problem in Canada or the USA. The root problem is not the drugs as I stated earlier. If you remove the root problem, then...the problem should go away. But...you said this, "Once the heroin is gone, you have to help them keep the heroin out of thier system." Why would you still be dealing with the problem of "keeping the heroin out of thier system" if the "root problem" was already dealt with?

A.A & N.A. claim a 2-3% success rate, they are supposed to be the experts at addcition recovery. If it were very simple, the rate would be 80 - 90% not 2-3%. The thing about addiction is you can only help those who want help. You cannot force someone to get straight.

It is very simple, a heroin addict is addicted to heroin. You have to get the heroin out of their system, then help them keep it out of their system. The base problem is very simple, I did not say the whole problem is simple. When I say "once the heroin is gone", it must be taken in the context I was using, as in "gone from their body".

I did not think it was necessary to state that an addict will always be an addict, I assumed anyone participating in this discussion would already know that. That being said, even once an addict is clean, it is a well known fact that a relapse can occur, as I already stated in the post you took the quote from.

I did not say keeping addicts clean was simple, quite the contrary, I said the needed help, and more funding should go towards that support. When we are discussing heroin addicts, everything leads back to the same place, heroin, and their addiction to it, always heroin. That is very simple, the heroin is killing them. It is a physical(yes, mental too) addiction, and that is to the drug itself.

I fail to see where I have contradicted myself. Simply put, heroin is killing them, get the heroin out of their body, and it stops killing them. Help them keep it out of there body, and it stops killing them. Give them free heroin instead of helping them get clean, you continue to help the heroin kill them.

Bring it down to the base, the root, giving a heroin addict free heroin does not stop heroin from destroying their mind or body, it only adds to the destruction. Help them get clean, and stay clean, you stop the destruction. Very simple context, just like supplying an alcoholic 24 beer a day will do nothing to help stop his drinking, free dope does not stop addicts from getting high. It can't get any simpler than that, it's common sense!

[krag]

I did not think it was necessary to state that an addict will always be an addict, I assumed anyone participating in this discussion would already know that. That being said, even once an addict is clean, it is a well known fact that a relapse can occur, as I already stated in the post you took the quote from.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. That is only one particular recovery "philosophy" and nor do I subscribe to its use or validity. Remember, this is the philosophy that can only keep 2-3% of thier clients addiction free. As per the rules of this forum I am not at liberty to discuss my "particular" recovery philosophy since it crosses into the area of religion. I have been an addict and also continue to work with addicts on a daily basis.

Your contradiction comes by way of this statement.
What is at the root of the problem for heroin junkies? Very simple, heroin. You have to get the heroin out of their system, it's killing them. Once the heroin is gone, you have to help them keep the heroin out of their system.

You said, "root problem," the root problem is the core problem, the real problem. Now follow allong with me, I will break it down into simple terms since that seems to be your main thesis for your arguments. :) Your "root problem" is only a result or symptom of the real root problem, the real root problem is "emotional instability."
Once the "real problem" is removed there ceases to be a problem at all. There are reasons why people use drugs. Certainly drugs are a problem, but not the "root problem," the root problem is the reason why! Are you with me? THere are issues/problems in a persons subconsious mind that drive them to use mind altering substances. These problems can be as varied as much as there are different kinds of people. Each "root problem" is like your finger prints, its tailored specifically to you. Low self-esteem seems to be a very popular reason but its usually paired with other accompaning negative emotions. Peer-pressure would never work if it weren't for low self-esteem problems.

If you attack the "real root problem" (emotional-instability) then you have removed the reason for becoming addicted. If there is no reason or why, then the problem has been solved. and you are no longer addicted. There is certainly a vacuum left behind in a persons heart/mind after the issues have been dealt with but that is its self another topic and crosses into the area of religion.

[Malpine Walis]

The program will be funded by Health Canada, so it affects every tax paying citizen of this country, whether they live in NFLD, Vancouver, or on Baffin Island,

As a taxpayer, I believe I have a right to a family doctor, I pay their salary, yet I have no access to one. On the other hand, instead of hiring more doctors, or giving doctors incentives to stay in Canada, Health Canada has decided to spend MY money on free dope. This is not right.



OK so Health Canada is trying to manage limited resources and there is just not enough to go around. Got it. Sort of like trying to get ten slices out of an eight slice pie. The problem is that there are only a couple of ways to do that.

One way is to say that all the slices have to be smaller than everyone would like. Well, it happens that if that is the way that insufficient resources are managed then there will be system wide shortages. Too bad if that is the case but in order to keep everyone happy, taxes are going to have to go up until there is enough money to keep everyone happy.

The other is to deny some people any pie at all on the grounds that they are not important enough to get any pie until such time as other problems have been dealt with. I suppose that that is an approach but then we are back to the point that I made earlier that it leaves a stain on all of us. If we tell one group of people to stand aside while other groups get 100% of what they want, then how do we call ourselves enlightened?



If that is the case, would it not make more sense to provide additional funding to these programs,



Um, what additional funding? If the system is so poor that there just in not enough money to spread around, then where does the new money come from?



Off topic, but addiction is addiction...

Any hardcore addict, that's been using for 5 years or more, most likely has every disease they could possibly ever get...

What is at the root of the problem for heroin junkies? Very simple, heroin...



Now where did you get your ideas about addiction? Could you please link us to some source material?

Those of us who are in the field seem to have very different ideas about what addiction means. For example, it is just not true that addiction is a monolithic phenomenon. There is no drug that is instantly addicting but rather addiction is a process that at a minimum takes many months to set in. Often it takes many years before an addict is created. In some cases, it is even true that people can use heroin or other supposedly addicting drugs for decades without ever developing an addiction that even merits treatment.

Further, depending on which study you pick, anywhere from 2% to 20% of addicts will put the addiction behind themselves in a given year. The reason for the variance has to do with the fact that it is quite difficult to put together more than a couple of hundred people with a specific addiction to perform such a study. Often the study population is as small as a few dozen. However, the essential fact remains that many addicts can free themselves of the addiction given the appropriate circumstances.

As Krag has observed, addressing core issues often plays a large role in helping addicts to rid themselves of the addiction. Sometimes that means psychological counseling, in other cases the way back to sanity for an addict is spiritual. In other cases, many addicts have been documented as “maturing out” of the addiction. The solution is in no way going to be the same for every one. However, the fact remains that one of the greatest disservices that one can perform is to attempt to group all addicts into one category and call them uncurable.

[Brundle Fly]

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. That is only one particular recovery "philosophy" and nor do I subscribe to its use or validity. Remember, this is the philosophy that can only keep 2-3% of thier clients addiction free. As per the rules of this forum I am not at liberty to discuss my "particular" recovery philosophy since it crosses into the area of religion. I have been an addict and also continue to work with addicts on a daily basis.

"YOU" do not subscribe to the philosophy that I do, so therefor my philosophy is wrong. End of that discussion, you are right because we don't agree, and it's obvious, to you anyhow, that you are right, as is your philosophy, all other philosophies are wrong, fine by me. :)

Your contradiction comes by way of this statement.

You said, "root problem," the root problem is the core problem, the real problem. Now follow allong with me, I will break it down into simple terms since that seems to be your main thesis for your arguments. :) Your "root problem" is only a result or symptom of the real root problem, the real root problem is "emotional instability."
Once the "real problem" is removed there ceases to be a problem at all. There are reasons why people use drugs. Certainly drugs are a problem, but not the "root problem," the root problem is the reason why! Are you with me? THere are issues/problems in a persons subconsious mind that drive them to use mind altering substances. These problems can be as varied as much as there are different kinds of people. Each "root problem" is like your finger prints, its tailored specifically to you. Low self-esteem seems to be a very popular reason but its usually paired with other accompaning negative emotions. Peer-pressure would never work if it weren't for low self-esteem problems.

When someone "speaks" to me in a condescending tone, I toss any validity I was considering giving their ideas/philosphy out the window, as in: "Now follow allong with me, I will break it down into simple terms since that seems to be your main thesis for your arguments. :)" "Are you with me?". I am not a child, nor do I appreciate being addressed as one. My childhood was far from easy, my younger years were spent experimenting with many drugs, it was a culture I thoroughly embraced and enjoyed. I got out, not all do, not all want to. It's a matter of choice, in the beginning.

If you attack the "real root problem" (emotional-instability) then you have removed the reason for becoming addicted. If there is no reason or why, then the problem has been solved. and you are no longer addicted. There is certainly a vacuum left behind in a persons heart/mind after the issues have been dealt with but that is its self another topic and crosses into the area of religion.

We have opposing philosophies on this subject, seeing that you've obviously deemed my philosophy in-valid, so there's no point discussing this further with you. Peace :)

[Brundle Fly]

OK so Health Canada is trying to manage limited resources and there is just not enough to go around. Got it. Sort of like trying to get ten slices out of an eight slice pie. The problem is that there are only a couple of ways to do that.

One way is to say that all the slices have to be smaller than everyone would like. Well, it happens that if that is the way that insufficient resources are managed then there will be system wide shortages. Too bad if that is the case but in order to keep everyone happy, taxes are going to have to go up until there is enough money to keep everyone happy.

The other is to deny some people any pie at all on the grounds that they are not important enough to get any pie until such time as other problems have been dealt with. I suppose that that is an approach but then we are back to the point that I made earlier that it leaves a stain on all of us. If we tell one group of people to stand aside while other groups get 100% of what they want, then how do we call ourselves enlightened?

Can you tell me how giving heroin addicts free heroin helps them get rid of their heroin addiction? Sorry, but I fail to see how a free supply of heroin somehow stops an addict from using it. Maybe I'm missing something here? It goes like this:
Addict: "Hey, I want my free dope."
Clinic: "Here you go, now make sure you go home, get stoned, then quit, okay?"
Addict: "Sure man, thanks, see you tomorrow for my hit."
Clinic: "Okay, see you a nine sharp!"
That just doesn't work. :bang head

Um, what additional funding? If the system is so poor that there just in not enough money to spread around, then where does the new money come from?

As I already stated, more than once, take the money that would be spent on free heroin and use it to help these addicts get straight, spend more on support groups, spend more on programs that teach them to be productive members of society. Obviously the funding is available, the free dope comes from somewhere. Why throw money away on something that kills people? I don't get it.



Now where did you get your ideas about addiction? Could you please link us to some source material?

Those of us who are in the field seem to have very different ideas about what addiction means. For example, it is just not true that addiction is a monolithic phenomenon. There is no drug that is instantly addicting but rather addiction is a process that at a minimum takes many months to set in. Often it takes many years before an addict is created. In some cases, it is even true that people can use heroin or other supposedly addicting drugs for decades without ever developing an addiction that even merits treatment.

I may not be a social worker that deals with addicts on a daily basis, but I did work with addicts at my place of employment for a year and a half, from March '03 until August of last year. I also went to parties at their houses, and saw them cooking up their rock, snorting the coke, and smoking their weed. They saved the "main-lining" for the washroom, where they'd sit zoned for the next 1/2 hour, then stagger back down to the party. I know what drugs do, and the toll they take on a person. Not from sitting in an office, not from reading articles, and not from seeing statistics. I know it first hand, from using drugs, and from seeing what chronics and addicts use drugs. I ain't no cherry, I have first hand experience.

Further, depending on which study you pick, anywhere from 2% to 20% of addicts will put the addiction behind themselves in a given year. The reason for the variance has to do with the fact that it is quite difficult to put together more than a couple of hundred people with a specific addiction to perform such a study. Often the study population is as small as a few dozen. However, the essential fact remains that many addicts can free themselves of the addiction given the appropriate circumstances.

Have ant of those who have freed themselves from addiction stated that because they were given free drugs, they were able to kick the habit? How many of them stated that once they no longer had to steal, or work to buy their drugs, the drugs were free, they finally found the resolve to kick the habit?

NONE, would be my guess.

As Krag has observed, addressing core issues often plays a large role in helping addicts to rid themselves of the addiction. Sometimes that means psychological counseling, in other cases the way back to sanity for an addict is spiritual. In other cases, many addicts have been documented as “maturing out” of the addiction. The solution is in no way going to be the same for every one. However, the fact remains that one of the greatest disservices that one can perform is to attempt to group all addicts into one category and call them uncurable.

I have not once called all addicts incurable, in fact I have stated that more funding should be directed towards helping them get over their addiction. If I thought they were incurable, I would not propose spending more money on helping them.

This whole article is about the Canadian gov't giving out free heroin to heroin addicts, and Health Canada's backing of the claim by "NAOMI" that free heroin will help heroin addicts kick their habit.

It won't. No one, in their right mind, can say it will. Toss philosophies about why drug addiction exists aside, toss philosophies about what causes addiction, the fact of the matter is that supplying junkies with free drugs does not cure addiction. You can claim it does, but once again, turning your back to the fire does not put it out.

[Malpine Walis]

Can you tell me how giving heroin addicts free heroin helps them get rid of their heroin addiction?



Yes. Will you listen?

[krag]

"YOU" do not subscribe to the philosophy that I do, so therefor my philosophy is wrong. End of that discussion, you are right because we don't agree, and it's obvious, to you anyhow, that you are right, as is your philosophy, all other philosophies are wrong, fine by me.

These are not my words but yours. I have never said that any one philosophy was wrong. All I am trying to do is explain what the root problem is and how to deal with the issue of drug addiction.

When someone "speaks" to me in a condescending tone, I toss any validity I was considering giving their ideas/philosphy out the window,

You seem to be quick with the accusations but short on taking time to even consider someone elses "experience" or methods that have been proven.
Malpine Walis and I both have similar jobs yet differ in our approaches to the same problems. He and I get along fine. :cool: I know that the people he reaches and deals with are usually not the people that I could reach.

I am not a child, nor do I appreciate being addressed as one.

No one has done any labeling here except you. Your statements and position on this topic are being challenged by me, Malpy and others, but you certainly are showing us all your maturity level by statments such as this....

We have opposing philosophies on this subject, seeing that you've obviously deemed my philosophy in-valid, so there's no point discussing this further with you.

With this statement you are telling me, "I am gonna take my ball and go home now." Now what maturiy level is that?

I have deemed nothing except trying to explaine to you what the root of the drug problem is. You are placing comments, labels and accusations in my mouth that i have never said.

*edit* However, I do remeber saying this...

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. That is only one particular recovery "philosophy" and nor do I subscribe to its use or validity. Remember, this is the philosophy that can only keep 2-3% of thier clients addiction free.

My intention here is to show that 2-3% sucsess rate is not what I classify as sucsess or even usfull. Would anybody here use something that only worked 2-3% of the time? I certainly would not and thats all I am trying to say. I do not use it and will not because of the 2-3% ratio. If the % ratio was like 60-80%, then I would definately use it in my vocation. I am pragmatic in this, because % rates mean people and drug addicts are people.

[Brundle Fly]

Yes. Will you listen?

Yes, I will listen, I'm not as close-minded as you may believe. :D

[Brundle Fly]

These are not my words but yours. I have never said that any one philosophy was wrong. All I am trying to do is explain what the root problem is and how to deal with the issue of drug addiction.

I'm sorry, but when you say a philosophy has no validity, and I quote: "You obviously do not know what you are talking about. That is only one particular recovery "philosophy" and nor do I subscribe to its use or validity. Remember, this is the philosophy that can only keep 2-3% of thier clients addiction free.", you are saying it is wrong. That is very simple. No Validity=WRONG.

You seem to be quick with the accusations but short on taking time to even consider someone elses "experience" or methods that have been proven.
Malpine Walis and I both have similar jobs yet differ in our approaches to the same problems. He and I get along fine. :cool: I know that the people he reaches and deals with are usually not the people that I could reach.

Seems to me that you are guilty of the same thing. :)

No one has done any labeling here except you. Your statements and position on this topic are being challenged by me, Malpy and others, but you certainly are showing us all your maturity level by statments such as this....

With this statement you are telling me, "I am gonna take my ball and go home now." Now what maturiy level is that?

Actually, the statement means that I'm more intelligent than the person that would whip a dead horse. I know the horse won't get back up, it's dead. Some people would whip it for days. I chose not to do so. You stated that you do not give my philosophy any validity, so what would be the point of me discussing it further with you? Feel free to label me as immature, your judgement of my maturity affects me in no way whatsoever. In the meantime, experience and maturity, have taught me there is no point talking to a brick wall, it can't hear what you have to say.

I have deemed nothing except trying to explaine to you what the root of the drug problem is. You are placing comments, labels and accusations in my mouth that i have never said.

I did not "twist" any of your words, nor did I "put words in your mouth", your words are your words. I don't play the "word twisting game", it does not add to a discussion, it takes away from it, and that is something I have no intention of doing.

My intention here is to show that 2-3% sucsess rate is not what I classify as sucsess or even usfull. Would anybody here use something that only worked 2-3% of the time? I certainly would not and thats all I am trying to say. I do not use it and will not because of the 2-3% ratio. If the % ratio was like 60-80%, then I would definately use it in my vocation. I am pragmatic in this, because % rates mean people and drug addicts are people.

Okay, why don't we look at that "success rate"(obviously, a misnomer in this case), and try to understand what the problem is with the program, and how this new program would help.

It has already been stated, and is a well known fact, that programs to help addicts are severly underfunded. From what I understand, there just aren't enough "social workers" to help the addicts, and the few there are, don't have the resources they require to help the addicts. If a social worker has 200 clients, obviously, they cannot offer those clients the support they require, there's just not enough hours in a day. Possibly, by cutting down the case load, they could offer individual addicts more time one-on-one, which would in my estimation help the program, and the addicts.

How does AA work? I do believe they have "sponsors", sorry if I used the wrong term, who are there to offer support 24/7. They are just a phone call away, at any time. AA works. Addicts don't have the same type of program to help them.

That being said, this new program, is not dealing with any of the issues we find in the old program. Instead, the new program will hand out free heroin to addicts, and hope that by giving them free drugs, they will have more time to seek out help themselves. The free time will come from the addicts no longer having to steal to buy their drugs. The idea is that addicts, given the new-found free time, will use it to help themselves get clean.

Okay, so where do they get the help from? Certainly, they don't mean the programs that are already in place, do they? Obviously, as you have stated, they don't work. So, where do these people go for help? Are they to use the same underfunded programs that are in place now? Read the whole article, and see what they hope to accomplish with this program.

I'll break it down for you.
1) Stop petty crime, as in: junkies won't have to steal for their dope, it's free now.
2) Prevent hardcore junkies(addicted for 5 years or more) from contracting diseases.
3) Hope that addicts, who now have access to free dope, will go and find help for their addiction on their own in their newfound spare time.

How does this help an addict give up his habit?

[krag]

Actually, the statement means that I'm more intelligent than the person that would whip a dead horse. I know the horse won't get back up, it's dead. Some people would whip it for days. I chose not to do so. You stated that you do not give my philosophy any validity, so what would be the point of me discussing it further with you? Feel free to label me as immature, your judgement of my maturity affects me in no way whatsoever. In the meantime, experience and maturity, have taught me there is no point talking to a brick wall, it can't hear what you have to say.

Oh jeeze...so now your more intellegent than me. Ha haha hahah. Your methods of debate are "imature" and very flawed. You are "easy pickings." :)

You post statements that are basically goobledy-gook, they do not keep to any standard of logic. example....I did not think it was necessary to state that an addict will always be an addict, I assumed anyone participating in this discussion would already know that. That being said, even once an addict is clean, it is a well known fact that a relapse can occur, as I already stated in the post you took the quote from.

Your well known facts and assumptions only exisist in your own mind. You are making half hearted attempts to cover your own statements but never really answer the real point of the discussion. Which is now becoming lost in the "fog of debate." I would rather talk about the "root issue of drug addiction" and "whether or not free dope is going to help addicts get off dope."

I'm sorry, but when you say a philosophy has no validity, and I quote: "You obviously do not know what you are talking about. That is only one particular recovery "philosophy" and nor do I subscribe to its use or validity. Remember, this is the philosophy that can only keep 2-3% of thier clients addiction free.", you are saying it is wrong. That is very simple. No Validity=WRONG.
Since when did 2-3% become a valid means to anything? Go ahead take your 2-3% and tell everybody its VALID. Tell all the people that are looking for help that 97% of you are not going to make it if you use this particular tool.

Valid does not mean WRONG.
Websters Dictionary - Valid

Main Entry: val·id
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, from valEre
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>

So maybe you are so smart that you can better define words that Websters dictionary? Maybe you could quote this sentence and say that Websters is a brick wall?

Which brings us to another point.
Actually, the statement means that I'm more intelligent than the person that would whip a dead horse. I know the horse won't get back up, it's dead. Some people would whip it for days. I chose not to do so.

No dead horses here, just tring to get you to answer some challenges to your positions. You are avoiding the real issue. You become "easily offended" and start throwing acussations around like; condesending...what? Have you looked at any of your past posts? Or are you so much more intellegent than me that the principle doesn't apply to you?

[Brundle Fly]

Oh jeeze...so now your more intellegent than me. Ha haha hahah. Your methods of debate are "imature" and very flawed. You are "easy pickings." :)

<snip>


As I said before, no point discussing this issue further with you. Mockery does not encourage discourse. Grow up.
:rolleyes: