Scare tactics aren’t the answer for overdose crisis,

[JagXKR]

You support the oil sands which is biggest rape in canadian history you have no supperior position

Complete garbage, plain and simple.

I have a superior position on spelling.

[Jflem1983]

Sounds like one of my best buddies growing up might have Over dosed and died. RIP. Another one bites the dust.

Guess he is on life support. Off to say my goodbyes. Harm reduction appears to be failing

[Prestige Mike]

Sounds like one of my best buddies growing up might have Over dosed and died. RIP. Another one bites the dust.

Guess he is on life support. Off to say my goodbyes. Harm reduction appears to be failing

Sorry for your loss.

Harm reduction has helped in certain areas, but it has fallen short on the fentanyl crisis. Places like insite have certainly saved lives during this overdose crisis, but there needs to be more. The drug enforcement strategy is not working either. Fentanyl appears to be too easy for nefarious drug dealers to smuggle in this country. The only solution I can think of that will save lives is places like Crosstown Clinic expanding, places like insite expanding to multiple strategic locations, and possibly the government selling standardized doses of heroin. I understand none of those ideas are popular politically, but I can't think of any other ideas.

[Jflem1983]

Sounds like one of my best buddies growing up might have Over dosed and died. RIP. Another one bites the dust.

Guess he is on life support. Off to say my goodbyes. Harm reduction appears to be failing

Sorry for your loss.

Harm reduction has helped in certain areas, but it has fallen short on the fentanyl crisis. Places like insite have certainly saved lives during this overdose crisis, but there needs to be more. The drug enforcement strategy is not working either. Fentanyl appears to be too easy for nefarious drug dealers to smuggle in this country. The only solution I can think of that will save lives is places like Crosstown Clinic expanding, places like insite expanding to multiple strategic locations, and possibly the government selling standardized doses of heroin. I understand none of those ideas are popular politically, but I can't think of any other ideas.

Its always the people with big personalities. Gonna be a sombre christmas this year. 2017 has easily been the worst year in memory.

Can not wait for 2018.

[Prestige Mike]

Its always the people with big personalities.

I lost a good friend about 1.5 years ago to heroin (surprisingly no fentanyl showed up in his blood). It was a surprise for many of us in his social group that he was using heroin. Apparently he had been dabbling with heroin a few times a month for the 6 months before he OD'd. It was a challenging time after he passed. That was the first (and only) time I experienced loss like that.

He was the 'big personality' in my group of friends. He was the center of attention anywhere he went, and when he would leave the room it created a vacuum.

[hobbyguy]

Hobbyguy said in part:


"IF the unfortunates who are addicted to opiods had access to government supplied regulated and consistent dose opiods..."

1) then they would NEVER get off the drugs. It would make it easier for them to stay addicted - remember even if the drugs they are doing are legal and supplied to them, IF as you say they would make the choice to quit (which I don't believe for a nano-second) they would STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITHDRAWAL and if it were legal they would give up at the first discomfort and grab a fix.

Only way out of a drug life is to get off the drugs - one way or the other.

You are using "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots". And at the same time taking the comment incompletely and out of context.

The intent of decriminalization and provision of legal controlled doses is NOT to get people off their addictions. The intent is twofold: 1) reduce the harm to society and 2) reduce the harm to the individual.

The most important part of the equation is reducing the harm to society. I say that because I do recognize that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

I refer you back to the American experience with alcohol prohibition, which led to:

1) poisonings from improperly made stuff, sometimes deliberately adulterated as a cheap way to $$$
2) the development of many illegal channels for smuggling
3) the rise of gangs of organized/semi-organized criminals
4) criminalization of many "ordinary" folks
5) rampant increases in violent crime, especially shootings and gun violence
6) abuse of the substance did NOT decrease
7) significant additional costs to government (policing etc. etc. etc.)
8) reduced tax revenues for governments

So the prohibitionist stance is entirely counter productive to society. The so called "cure" for the problem did nothing, and created many, many more problems as unintended consequences.

In the end, prohibition was repealed, and the issues except abuse of the substance mostly went away (some of the smugglers and crime/organized crime figures turned to other prohibited substances as an alternative). The costs to society were dramatically reduced, while the costs to the individual substance abusers were reduced in societal terms.

The prohibition against marijuana is going away in Canada. That is a pragmatic recognition that the prohibition effort was more costly to society than a control regime (which also creates a lot of legitimate jobs!).

So we will have control regimes in place for alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana as well as gambling (psychologically addictive).

None of those regimes are perfect. None of those control regimes costs nothing, but all limit both the damage to society and to a reasonable extent to the individual - with some corresponding payback to society in the form of taxes.

Opiate addictions have been around for a very long time. https://www.deamuseum.org/ccp/opium/history.html

"The earliest reference to opium growth and use is in 3,400 B.C. when the opium poppy was cultivated in lower Mesopotamia (Southwest Asia). The Sumerians referred to it as Hul Gil, the "joy plant.""

Given that long history, it is unrealistic and certainly not pragmatic to think that opiate addictions are not a permanent fixture within our societies. It becomes a matter of how do we manage opiate addictions so that we can minimize the harm to the citizenry and society.

We HAVE a regime for that. It is our prescription drug system.

It is legal for a doctor a doctor to prescribe heroin as a treatment for addictions where the patient does not respond to other treatments. Buried in that is a stigmatization and unrealistic expectation born out of our prohibition stance, a circular logic that the substitutes will all be exhausted before prescribing maintenance opiates. My guess is that an addict will know after one or two doses if the substitutes are going to work for them - if not, as it appears to be in a high proportion of cases, then they are "back on the street" and in the hands of the criminal organizations.

The question is not whether or not we, as a society, can "defeat" opiate addiction. That question was answered 5,000 years ago, and the answer is no we can't. The question is how should we, as a society, manage the situation.

If you want to drive addicted persons into a life of petty crime and homelessness, support criminals, gangs and organized crime. Well then prohibition is for you.

If, on the other hand, you want less petty crime, less homelessness, fewer criminals, fewer gangs, less gang violence, less smuggling, less organized crime - then a more rational approach is for you.

When you consider all of the factors, subsidizing heroin for the addicted through subsidized prescriptions is not only cheaper for society, it is better for society, and better for the unfortunate individuals that have fallen into addiction. Yes, some will never beat their addictions... but they will no longer be forced into petty crime and the costly circles of jails, courts, prison, probation, homelessness, jails, courts, prison, probation, jails, courts... and on it goes.. 'round and 'round.

[Jflem1983]

My buddy wasnt doing any petty crime. He drove a 2017 5 series. What does it matter. Free heroin would not have helped him any

[The Green Barbarian]

You support the oil sands which is biggest rape in canadian history you have no supperior position

rape of what exactly? It's been the biggest source of government revenue to fund losers on welfare in Canadian history, that's for sure.

[hobbyguy]

My buddy wasnt doing any petty crime. He drove a 2017 5 series. What does it matter. Free heroin would not have helped him any

Circumstances vary from individual to individual. Like I said, it isn't "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots". Some affluent drug users die because of fentanyl contamination in their drugs. However, 30% of the property crime inmates in the US said that they committed their crimes in pursuit of money to feed their habits. A study in Queensland, Australia put the number at 81%!!!

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/drugs.html

"In Queensland 81 per cent of imprisoned property offenders claimed that they committed the crime to support their drug habit"

Of course jurisdictions vary a lot in their mix of social situations, urbanization etc., so it is difficult to put a hard number on the effect.

So, if legal prescriptions were readily available to support addicts, and subsidized in accordance with the individual addict's needs, what could the outcomes be?

1) 30-80% (depending on the jurisdiction) of property crimes could be eliminated.
2) some welfare money we are already paying would divert to housing, shelter etc.
3) a substantial number of addicts would not wind up with criminal records that hurt their chances of getting a job and becoming a productive citizen in the future
4) some affluent addicts would NOT die from fentanyl contaminated doses
5) policing and justice system resources would be freed up to better deal with other issues

Seems like a win-win to me.

[maryjane48]

Or to summerise commonsense

[Jflem1983]

The only common sense on this topic is stay away from opiates. Save your life. Stay away from all drugs is even better.

[maryjane48]

Victoria,to get new facility

https://www.vicnews.com/news/victoria-g ... tion-site/

[the truth]

so peoples tax payers money is supporting and paying for illegal places for people to shot up and do drugs

last time i checked it was against the law to do these drugs , so these places are there to make sure these people do not od so they can go on stealing and robbing the locals for there next high, but who cares about that i guess

[Loki2u]

so peoples tax payers money is supporting and paying for illegal places for people to shot up and do drugs

last time i checked it was against the law to do these drugs , so these places are there to make sure these people do not od so they can go on stealing and robbing the locals for there next high, but who cares about that i guess

The center isn't illegal-the drugs are.

Also,it costs the tax payer way more in taxes with repeated trips to the Emergency room for these OD cases as well as the overworked emergency services dealing with these individuals.

It's all about perspective I suppose.

[the truth]

yes it is, so less trips to the er so hospitals are less busy as you say, but more 911 cop calls cause they go on stealing to keep affording there drugs , nothing changes