Dr. Perry Kendall want to give addicts their drugs...

[dle]

So here's a story from Castanet this morning. Dr. Kendall wants the Province to give addicts free drugs.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#187373

I can see both sides of this story but I get really hung up on the fact that the drugs are illegal and whether they are addicted to them or not, they shouldn't be doing them and they know the risk is extreme. Yes, I've gone over the speed limit. I've rolled through a stop sign. I think all of us break the "law" in some way every day! This is different as the Province wants us to pay and ignore the law - which will amount to a significant amount of money - by doing something that will, IMHO, keep people on the drugs. If they want to make the drugs legal, that's a different story. Even then, we will hear countless arguments about why their drugs and equipment should be handed out free when people with diabetes etc do not get that same benefits.

As of right now though, they are illegal. Sure they are dangerous and many people are dying and that is a horrible reality. They know the risks but they are unable to get off the drugs so the Province wants us to protect them and pay for them to be on their drugs. Armed robbery is also dangerous and you run the risk of being shot in the act of committing the crime. There are many things that are illegal and can be dangerous and you could die doing them. Why does that mean the taxpayers should pay for the illegal drugs to be distributed? Does that mean that "illegal" doesn't really mean "illegal" because the government can "legally" choose to ignore the "illegality" of the crime as being at their own discretion?? At this point do they say well these drugs are actually their "medicine" for their "illness" and should go through Pharmacare?

How is this going to work?

[Ken7]

So here's a story from Castanet this morning. Dr. Kendall wants the Province to give addicts free drugs.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#187373

I can see both sides of this story but I get really hung up on the fact that the drugs are illegal and whether they are addicted to them or not, they shouldn't be doing them and they know the risk is extreme. Yes, I've gone over the speed limit. I've rolled through a stop sign. I think all of us break the "law" in some way every day! This is different as the Province wants us to pay and ignore the law - which will amount to a significant amount of money - by doing something that will, IMHO, keep people on the drugs. If they want to make the drugs legal, that's a different story. Even then, we will hear countless arguments about why their drugs and equipment should be handed out free when people with diabetes etc do not get that same benefits.

As of right now though, they are illegal. Sure they are dangerous and many people are dying and that is a horrible reality. They know the risks but they are unable to get off the drugs so the Province wants us to protect them and pay for them to be on their drugs. Armed robbery is also dangerous and you run the risk of being shot in the act of committing the crime. There are many things that are illegal and can be dangerous and you could die doing them. Why does that mean the taxpayers should pay for the illegal drugs to be distributed? Does that mean that "illegal" doesn't really mean "illegal" because the government can "legally" choose to ignore the "illegality" of the crime as being at their own discretion?? At this point do they say well these drugs are actually their "medicine" for their "illness" and should go through Pharmacare?

How is this going to work?

I felt the same way as you did when I heard this. I'm wondering if they will be setting these individuals up on a reduction program in a effort of rehabilitation.

IF it is give them what they want, because they are not going to change. I'm not for giving them drugs. Call me cruel or what ever you want but, I'm tired of catering to these addicts at my expense!

[spooker]

I can see both sides of this story but I get really hung up on the fact that the drugs are illegal and whether they are addicted to them or not, they shouldn't be doing them and they know the risk is extreme. Yes, I've gone over the speed limit. I've rolled through a stop sign. I think all of us break the "law" in some way every day! This is different as the Province wants us to pay and ignore the law - which will amount to a significant amount of money - by doing something that will, IMHO, keep people on the drugs. If they want to make the drugs legal, that's a different story. Even then, we will hear countless arguments about why their drugs and equipment should be handed out free when people with diabetes etc do not get that same benefits.

Equating rolling through a stop sign or speeding with doing drugs is just ridiculous ... I'd actually say that the bad driving behaviour is worse for the general public ... the act of taking drugs affects the user when looked at by itself ... the act of running a stop sign has the potential to kill someone else ...

As of right now though, they are illegal. Sure they are dangerous and many people are dying and that is a horrible reality. They know the risks but they are unable to get off the drugs so the Province wants us to protect them and pay for them to be on their drugs. Armed robbery is also dangerous and you run the risk of being shot in the act of committing the crime. There are many things that are illegal and can be dangerous and you could die doing them. Why does that mean the taxpayers should pay for the illegal drugs to be distributed? Does that mean that "illegal" doesn't really mean "illegal" because the government can "legally" choose to ignore the "illegality" of the crime as being at their own discretion?? At this point do they say well these drugs are actually their "medicine" for their "illness" and should go through Pharmacare?

How is this going to work?

By treating drugs as "illegal" and then creating the "war on drugs" we've been ignoring the root problems and dealing with the symptoms very ineffectually ... you can read article after article with that conclusion ... same thing for prohibition ...

People who are addicted to drugs and have to resort to the black market for their "medicine" end up getting whatever is on the street with who-knows-what quality ... the user rides a rollercoaster that heavily effects themselves and the people around them ...

By "giving" them pharmaceutical grade heroin the doses can be regulated so that they can be more stable, they won't risk overdosing, and can start getting a handle on life ... this takes away money from the dealer so it all comes out as a win-win ...

It's not ignoring the illegality of drugs ... it's finding a way that has a greater chance of solving the root issues

[dle]

Hi Spooker - I wasn't in any way trying to "equate" rolling through the stop with doing drugs - I was just pointing out plain and simply both are illegal.

And, if you re-read my post, you will see I said if they want to hand out free drugs, then they need to make the drugs legal. Otherwise, again in simple comparison only, the Province is being discretional in what "illegal" doings are actually "allowed" if they say so, without actually changing the law.

[spooker]

Hi Spooker - I wasn't in any way trying to "equate" rolling through the stop with doing drugs - I was just pointing out plain and simply both are illegal.

And, if you re-read my post, you will see I said if they want to hand out free drugs, then they need to make the drugs legal. Otherwise, again in simple comparison only, the Province is being discretional in what "illegal" doings are actually "allowed" if they say so, without actually changing the law.

But actually the drugs aren't illegal ... it's just the way that they're being procured or the reason for their use is considered a crime ... as pointed out in the article they would be getting a version of heroin that is produced through legal means, and prescribed by doctors ... neither of which is illegal ...

So you could say that the province is acknowlegding that addiction is a sickness and it's being treated medically ... not that they are enabling someone to get high to escape a miserable situation ...

As for equating rolling through a stop sign to taking drugs, still doesn't work as a comparison since one is driven by impatience while the other is coerced out of bad brain chemistry.

[slimbotimbo]

By giving addicts drugs you actually save money, crazy thought........ You have less burden on the health system due to people not oding or stealing from ambulances/hospitals or just stealing in general. Lots of people are addicted to drugs due to doctors prescribing hill billy heroin(oxycotin) and when they cant afford the expensive stuff they move to the cheaper street stuff. It also helps build a relationship with addicts which helps social workers and first responders help them get off drugs cause surprise surprise lots of addicts don't wanna be addicts.

[Hassel99]

I would be more keen to endorse harm reduction strategies if i felt there was an actual endgame instead of a band aid that does not address the root problems of addiction.

[FreeRights]

I would be more keen to endorse harm reduction strategies if i felt there was an actual endgame instead of a band aid that does not address the root problems of addiction.

I would agree, but harm reduction and addressing the root problems of addiction are two different things.

Harm reduction is designed specifically to minimize the impact on society and improve life safety of the addicted while the "end game" is realized. That being said, we're doing a particularly awful job in Canada defining and achieving this end game, but it's a completely kettle of fish than harm reduction.

[maryjane48]

yap thats the whole point m reduce harm to canadians , it is the endgame unless you sell them type of drugs, then you would be against this approach

[Hassel99]

yap thats the whole point m reduce harm to canadians , it is the endgame unless you sell them type of drugs, then you would be against this approach

People continuing to drugs is the end game?
I reject that fully.


How high are you right now? Be honest.