[Truth To Power]

Some countries are primitive in how they lock-up so many people for little or nothing. Moralizing windbags make crimes of small misdemeanors and choices others make and an inhumane police with the judiciary arrest and put people in prisons from their childhood. Their so-called judicial systems are completely broken and hypocritical. Shame on them.

Well, if you are talking about the USA, it's effectively to reinstate slavery: private prison companies sell the slave labor of convicts -- almost all non-white -- to private corporations for a fraction of the market price of uncoerced labor. Scratch many US firms and you find a business model based on slave labor. And of course, everyone else has to COMPETE with the slave labor of prison inmates, which drives down overall wages to a comparable level. To rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic corporate America, unjustly depriving millions of innocent fellow Americans of their liberty, their rightful market wages, and their life prospects is a small price to pay for getting labor on the cheap.

Your source is shit and wrong. I gave you better sources.

Actually, the articles AFAIK quoted gave sources, and you didn't -- other than "Google."

I am happy to discuss any subject but utter nonsense gets dismissed out of hand.

So, you actually have no sources for your claims...?

[Truth To Power]

deleted...

[Drlee]

What part of "utter nonsense gets dismissed out of hand" do you have trouble understanding?

Try reading the Guardian articles and see what their so-called sources are actually saying.

No. Never mind. If you even think there is a chance they are true, you will learn nothing.

[Dagoth Ur]

You really shouldn't talk about drugs if you aren't willing to research them drlee. Heroin deaths are 100% caused by overdose, some of which is people trying to get too high of course, but the vast majority of these deaths are due to a complete ignorance of the grade/percentage of actual heroin (and unexpected dosage issues related to switching between primitive "black tar" heroin which is mostly morphine, and chinese white heroin which is vastly purer).

Without this problem, which is as simply solved as by producing lab-grade heroin and medically dosing each individul patient based on weight, history, what-have-you, the death toll for heroin drops to zero. Other than nervous system damage (which from my understanding is more of a methadone problem more than anything) opiods have basically zero long term health problems. Crippling addiction is a social problem.

[Drlee]

You really shouldn't talk about drugs if you aren't willing to research them drlee.

I have researched them. Professionally. That is why this nonsense is not worth shouting about.

Heroin deaths are 100% caused by overdose, some of which is people trying to get too high of course, but the vast majority of these deaths are due to a complete ignorance of the grade/percentage of actual heroin (and unexpected dosage issues related to switching between primitive "black tar" heroin which is mostly morphine, and chinese white heroin which is vastly purer).

Actually this is not entirely true. There is immerging research that one can overdose on a dose with which one is accustomed. You can google this if you want to.

Or read this:

http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/390/Siegel.pdf

Without this problem, which is as simply solved as by producing lab-grade heroin and medically dosing each individul patient based on weight, history, what-have-you, the death toll for heroin drops to zero.

Simply solved?

Jesus folks. I work with heroin addicts (among others) three days a week. I will be leaving to work with some tonight. Do try to at least read up a bit before holding forth like that.

Get a grip. What you propose is unworkable. That is unless you wish to lock up all heroin addicts and keep them strung out forever. Really try to think about what you post.

[AFAIK]

You broadened the discussion from heroin to opiates and then wrote a lengthy diatribe criticising me for pursuing the tangent further by broadening the discussion to all recreational drugs. A line I pursued because you were concerned that opiate users might fall asleep whilst driving. People's driving can be impaired for all sorts of reasons and people can alter their consciousness and enjoy intoxication whilst avoiding dangerous activities. I'd consider road safety to be a separate issue.

You have asserted that you are right and the article is wrong but haven't backed this up with sources or studies. It is also clear that you didn't read the articles in full since you only mentioned the smallest data set from the UK and didn't address other data and studies that were mentioned in detail. Feel free to read the articles in full. Take your time and make a considered response if you wish but I'm not interested in spoon feeding the article to you line-by-line.

[Zamuel]

people can alter their consciousness and enjoy intoxication whilst avoiding dangerous activities.

And they do, traditionally and legally with alcohol and increasingly (just as legally) with marijuana (and derivatives). It's NOT well known public knowledge, but LEGAL commercial cultivation and distribution is breaking ground on a daily basis. A system is evolving, slowly and quietly. The government is fully engaged ... it's actually one of the most encouraging cooperative projects taking place. (try the kush!)

Zam

[Drlee]

You broadened the discussion from heroin to opiates and then wrote a lengthy diatribe criticising me for pursuing the tangent further by broadening the discussion to all recreational drugs.

Heroin is an opiate. It is a form of morphine you might say. (3,6-diacetyl ester of morphine). It is prescribed in some countries for pain. It is sometimes used as part of the treatment regimen for drug abuse therapy. You are not talking about its clinical use. If you do want to do that why are you referring to crimes? It is not a crime for physicians to prescribe heroin or other equally powerful opiates for pain. Why expand the discussion to other opiates? Because they are in the same class of drugs. As I posted, about 45% of heroin users start by the use of opioid pain medication. Once they run out and can't get more they turn to heroin. BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME TYPE OF DRUG. Meth, Benzos, etc. are not. This is becoming more common every day.

A line I pursued because you were concerned that opiate users might fall asleep whilst driving. People's driving can be impaired for all sorts of reasons and people can alter their consciousness and enjoy intoxication whilst avoiding dangerous activities. I'd consider road safety to be a separate issue.

Nonsense. Driving while intoxicated is a crime. This thread posits that heroin use is a "victimless crime". Your assertion. Not mine. Asking intoxicated people to make good decisions about their behavior, (particularly long-term user) is idiotic. Driving intoxicated is just one of the many problems that proves heroin addiction to not be victimless.

You have asserted that you are right and the article is wrong but haven't backed this up with sources or studies. It is also clear that you didn't read the articles in full since you only mentioned the smallest data set from the UK and didn't address other data and studies that were mentioned in detail. Feel free to read the articles in full. Take your time and make a considered response if you wish but I'm not interested in spoon feeding the article to you line-by-line.

Look. I am not going to post proof here that the world is round. It is not worth my time. The dangers of heroin addiction are clear and well documented. Few things more well documented. If you want to know if heroin is dangerous why don't you ask an addict? I do not know a single one who would choose Dr. provided heroin over kicking if they could.

You chose a poorly written article, filled with carefully chosen words to make a partisan case and expect serious people to take it seriously.

In the end this argument devolves to asking physicians whether they should be opium bartenders. Opioid addiction is not and either/or argument. There is a better third option. That option is treatment. It is hard and it is expensive but it can be effective. In the process of this treatment physicians frequently prescribe opioid drugs. But not maintenance doses which is what your article seems to favor. You see AFAIK one of the problems with treatment is that it requires us to spend a whole lot of money on some very broken people. We are not good at that. Wealthy addicted people can haul themselves off to one of the many plush rehab centers to try and kick their addiction on a diet of counseling, dose reduction therapy, fancy food and spa-like elegance. The poor. Not so much.

If you had appendicitis, in many cases, a doctor could hold off the disease indefinitely using antibiotics rather than invasive surgery. It might work for a long time until the whole thing blew up and you died. The best course is to get you into the hospital, take out your appendix (which like heroin you do not need to live a good life) and send you home to get on with that life.

Your article forgets something I have mentioned time and again but you seem intent on ignoring. People who are addicted to opioids are NOT fully functional. They are NOT capable of pursuing some if not most employment. They are in danger of dying because of an error in judgment and they are obviously addicted to a drug that affects their ability to exercise that judgment. Your article wants to keep them that way at the hands of the very people who could be instrumental in eliminating these dangers.

These are not my opinions, and they are not facts in dispute. Go to Google. Search Heroin CDC. Read the articles. Or read search SAMSA Heroin. Read the articles. Just Google heroin. Read the authorities one should reasonably trust. You can do that. I need not spoon feed you this stuff. Your argument is intellectually lazy and I dislike that.

[Truth To Power]

What part of "utter nonsense gets dismissed out of hand" do you have trouble understanding?

We understand it very well: you have no facts to support your claims, just opinion and propaganda.

Try reading the Guardian articles and see what their so-called sources are actually saying.

If you think they are saying something different, please provide relevant quotes.

No. Never mind. If you even think there is a chance they are true, you will learn nothing.

More accurately, if you think any fact that contradicts your beliefs can't possibly be true, you will learn nothing.

You really shouldn't talk about drugs if you aren't willing to research them drlee.

I have researched them. Professionally.

Yes, well, $#!+-for-brains drug warriors can say as much.

Heroin deaths are 100% caused by overdose, some of which is people trying to get too high of course, but the vast majority of these deaths are due to a complete ignorance of the grade/percentage of actual heroin (and unexpected dosage issues related to switching between primitive "black tar" heroin which is mostly morphine, and chinese white heroin which is vastly purer).

Actually this is not entirely true. There is immerging research that one can overdose on a dose with which one is accustomed. You can google this if you want to.

But in fact, it is almost unheard-of for heroin overdose death to occur when the drug is uncontaminated and its purity known. By contrast, illegal heroin contaminated with substances like fentanyl -- a much more powerful opiate -- routinely causes overdose deaths.

I work with heroin addicts (among others) three days a week.

Oh, really? How many of them have been using ONLY pharmaceutical-grade heroin of known purity, obtained at a price that reflects its manufacturing cost, hmmmmm? Or are you working with people who have been shooting up everything from turpentine to peanut butter because PROHIBITION has made their drug so expensive and impure?

Google "insite," the supervised-injection clinic in Vancouver, and start reading.

Get a grip. What you propose is unworkable.

Garbage. Portugal proves it is very workable -- and all recorded examples of prohibition prove THAT is what is REALLY unworkable. In fact, before heroin was made illegal, there were estimated to be 250K addicts in the USA, yet their addiction was simply not a significant public health issue. The worst of it was chronic constipation, which we know today can be treated with diet. Alcohol addiction and abuse, by contrast, was such a huge social problem that the Constitution was amended to try to get a handle on it. But heroin? Not so much.

That is unless you wish to lock up all heroin addicts and keep them strung out forever.

Why would we want to do that? It's not like they are using alcohol, and would thus constitute a clear and present danger to public safety if they were at liberty to roam the streets.

Really try to think about what you post.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

[Drlee]

Sorry TTP. If you want to assert that the earth is flat the ball is in your court.

Troll somewhere else. You assert that the CDC, SAMSA, NIH, every university, hospital, the APA, etc are all involved in another of your famous exercises into "propaganda". Why don't you present some credible evidence that there is such a conspiracy instead of just throwing your usual idiotic spitballs.

[Truth To Power]

Sorry TTP. If you want to assert that the earth is flat the ball is in your court.

I've said no such thing.

Troll somewhere else. You assert that the CDC, SAMSA, NIH, every university, hospital, the APA, etc are all involved in another of your famous exercises into "propaganda".

I've said no such thing. I have no idea what most hospitals and universities say on the subject, if anything. The others, however, definitely know better.

Why don't you present some credible evidence that there is such a conspiracy instead of just throwing your usual idiotic spitballs.

I didn't say anything that could honestly be interpreted as postulating a conspiracy.

[Zamuel]

I didn't say anything that could honestly be interpreted as postulating a conspiracy.

No ? I don't think you did ... But if you want to, look no further than the AMA ... Now pretty much just a rubber stamp for Pharmaceutical and Ins. Corps. They're LONG TERM supporters of punitive "controlled substance" laws and generally opponents of Homeopathic and Holistic Medicine. Some of the BS they've perpetrated and the prosecutions they've sponsored are horrendous!

Ironically, the AMA is now sniffing around the growing Medical Marijuana situation, trying to find someway to get a foot in the door.

Zam

[Drlee]

Well I see the tinfoil had brigade has weighed in.

Sorry Zamuel. Please stop trying to change the topic. If you want to start a thread about Homeopathy I suggest you do so. Gorky park would be the appropriate place as the subject has nothing to do with science. Maybe Psychology if you want to discuss the placebo effect.

[AFAIK]

I think DrLee has overlooked the nuance within the articles. The author states that 500 addicts were getting heroin prescriptions from GPs in the 70s and argues that when they were only able to access the drug on the black market they turned to crime to finance the higher cost. Some became drug dealers selling heroin to friends, colleagues and neighbours who would have little interest or access to the drug otherwise. This led to a huge increase in drug use and addiction, crimes to fund drug use (burglary, prostitution, dealing), and poor health due to contaminants, unreliable and unpredictable changes in purity, and lack of money to care for oneself when all income in spent on drugs.

The author is arguing that the negative externalities that accompany the black market are huge and that prohibition fueled the growth of drug production, distribution and use.

I'm surprised DrLee doesn't link to any of the superior studies he has access to. Since I supplied such a poorly written and misleading article, surely I cannot be trusted to locate true and accurate information by myself.

[Drlee]

I'm surprised DrLee doesn't link to any of the superior studies he has access to. Since I supplied such a poorly written and misleading article, surely I cannot be trusted to locate true and accurate information by myself.

Quite right. No doubt you are also too lazy to google any of the sources I presented.

But if you wish to advocate for decriminalizing drugs, and having them sold in 7-11 go ahead. Why get doctors involved? Oh wait. Is it because you really do believe these drugs are dangerous and that the best course of action is to keep addicts addicted for life out of convenience? No doubt you are willing to pay for this trough increased taxes. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that being addicted to heroin is a good thing? Maybe you don't mind that your taxi driver is high when he drives you? Maybe you think that when you make physicians prescribe recreational drugs at government expense then you must also require him to prescribe alcohol and tobacco? You are the one who brought that up. Not me.

If you so all fired ready to empty the public purse in the attempt to avoid inconvenience from drug abusers, then why not give them mandatory residential treatment. But no. You would rather just throw them a bone as long as they don't bother you.

[Truth To Power]

No doubt you are also too lazy to google any of the sources I presented.

Please provide sources for your claims.

But if you wish to advocate for decriminalizing drugs, and having them sold in 7-11 go ahead.

It would be better to sell them in a more regulated space -- and alcohol and tobacco, for that matter. Here, you can't get booze or smokes at the corner store, you have to go to specially licensed outlets.

Why get doctors involved?

Maybe because.... it's a HEALTH PROBLEM, NOT A CRIME?

Oh wait. Is it because you really do believe these drugs are dangerous

Of course they are dangerous... though typically not as dangerous as alcohol.

and that the best course of action is to keep addicts addicted for life out of convenience?

"Keep" them addicted? What an obvious strawman fallacy. We simply recognize that they have a right to pursue their own happiness as long as they abrogate no one else's rights. If that means using an addictive drug, fine, they have that right. Some people are addicted to video games, SNSes, phone sex, let alone alcohol or nicotine. Who are you to say they have to be cured of their addictions whether they like it or not? Maybe it's not what you would choose, maybe there is broad agreement that addiction is not a very dignified or worthwhile life. But if that's what they choose, and no one else is harmed, who are you to second-guess their choices?

No doubt you are willing to pay for this trough increased taxes.

How much tax revenue do you think is wasted on prohibition, hmmmmmmmmm? I guarantee you it is a multiple of what it would cost to just let them have their drug. In fact, the model of alcohol and tobacco, of legalizing and taxing drugs, looks vry financially attractive, especially compared to the wasteful idiocy of prohibition.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that being addicted to heroin is a good thing?

Is being addicted to nicotine, alcohol, video games, sports betting, Facebook, pornography, Red Bull or KFC a good thing? Do you want to THROW PEOPLE IN FUCKING JAIL for using those things, too?

Maybe you don't mind that your taxi driver is high when he drives you?

Do you mind that your pilot is three sheets to the wind because alcohol is legal?

Do you mind that your gas is being pumped by a guy who is smoking a cigarette because tobacco is legal?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: we REGULATE use of such products so users don't unreasonably endanger the rest of us through their use of them.

Do you understand now that all your fatuous nonsense is just fatuous nonsense?

Maybe you think that when you make physicians prescribe recreational drugs at government expense then you must also require him to prescribe alcohol and tobacco? You are the one who brought that up. Not me.

What is wrong with the tax model? You can get alcohol and tobacco without a prescription, if you are of age, by paying a tax as well as the production cost. Please show why the same model can't work for heroin.

If you so all fired ready to empty the public purse in the attempt to avoid inconvenience from drug abusers,

Do you have even the SLIGHTEST UNDERSTANDING of the difference between WASTING TAX revenue on absurd prohibitions and GETTING tax revenue by taxing items we consider undesirable?

then why not give them mandatory residential treatment.

Maybe because their condition is not contagious? Do we give people suffering from high blood pressure mandatory residential treatment to stop them from killing themselves with junk food -- or tobacco or alcohol?

You would rather just throw them a bone as long as they don't bother you.

That's right. I don't bother them, they don't bother me. Like smokers. You, however, feel you somehow have a right to bother them, and as a result, they bother me and everyone else.

Leave them the fuck alone, and maybe they will leave you alone, hmmmm? What a concept.

[Drlee]

Stupid wall of text yet again.

You should know by now TTP that I do not bother to respond to your trolling. Move along now.

[AFAIK]

I think DrLee is high right now. When asked to supply reliable sources his response is "just Google it." When I write about doctors prescribing heroin to addicts he reads "available at every 7-11." He also seems to believe that the high from heroin compels people to get behind the wheel of a car and doesn't need any evidence to back up this claim since it is as obvious to him as "water is wet" is to us.

[Pants-of-dog]

Legal injection sites have been shown to reduce overdose fatalities, even if it is only by a small margin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervi ... ives_saved

[Drlee]

He also seems to believe that the high from heroin compels people to get behind the wheel of a car and doesn't need any evidence to back up this claim since it is as obvious to him as "water is wet" is to us.

Get out of the shallow end of the pool. If you must argue preposterous points then this is pointless. You are trolling too.

Legal injection sites have been shown to reduce overdose fatalities, even if it is only by a small margin.

I actually read every word of your post. I hope that you did. I commend to you this statement I made in an earlier post:

In the end this argument devolves to asking physicians whether they should be opium bartenders. Opioid addiction is not and either/or argument. There is a better third option. That option is treatment. It is hard and it is expensive but it can be effective. In the process of this treatment physicians frequently prescribe opioid drugs. But not maintenance doses which is what your article seems to favor. You see AFAIK one of the problems with treatment is that it requires us to spend a whole lot of money on some very broken people. We are not good at that. Wealthy addicted people can haul themselves off to one of the many plush rehab centers to try and kick their addiction on a diet of counseling, dose reduction therapy, fancy food and spa-like elegance. The poor. Not so much.

The paper you posted included this:

Drug Free Australia has asserted that in 2003 the cost of running the Sydney MSIC equated to 400 NSW government-funded rehabilitation places[79] while the Health Minister for the Canadian Government, Tony Clements, has stated that the money for Insite would be better spent on treatment for clients.

Now while we have one troll comparing heroin addiction to "video game addiction" and who we have consequently rejected out of hand, others seem to have cast my argument to believe that I support and either/or approach. That is not true. As you can see from your own source, my beliefs are closely in line with those who have tried the solution under consideration and are wary of it as a stand alone piece.

You see POD, (and thank you for the article) and this is the key to my skepticism about programs like this, I see an additional danger in these programs that others here refuse to consider. That danger is that these Band-Aid approaches like this assuage the public consciousness and distract from more comprehensive solutions. To compare it to a subject upon which you and I have similar views, the institution of the Indian Reservation system, can serve to distract from the issues in the Native American community. The public frequently points to their existence and proclaims them to be the solution and more than enough to handle problems in the Native American community. Their very independence spurs claims that the problem is tribal leadership in "independent nations" and ignores other glaring issues. In short. These reservations are seen to be "enough".

The same is true with issues of the addicted and/or homeless and or chronically ill. We have these stand-alone programs which grab the public attention (just as this thread has) and make it all to easy to distract from the larger issues of addiction. Even to the point of some people (here) pointing to this idea as "the solution" to heroin addiction. If there is one point that your post makes it is that the idea of public shooting galleries is NOT, in itself even and important part of a comprehensive solution.

I posted a statistic from the CDC earlier. "45% of people who used heroin were also addicted to prescription opioid painkillers." This is an example of a statistic that the public and medical community is wont to ignore. As AFAIK's article points out, doctors are a key part of the solution but in an comprehensive national, regional and local program we have to train doctors to reduce their tendency to get people addicted in the first place. In these cases, careful administration of opioid pain killers in the first place including weaning the patient from long-term use can prevent a significant number of addicts from ever becoming addicted. (Far more than any stay-addicted but safe program could ever home to save, by the way.)

The elephant in the corner in these discussions is this simple understanding of (here offered by the https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... t-recovery) addiction treatment. And let me make this point up front (though most here will ignore it). As I have said earlier. I have no objection to and support the prescribing of opioid drugs as a part of a treatment program. It is a key part of any heroin treatment program. But this is an entirely different thing from the public decision to keep addicted people addicted while outside of a comprehensive treatment program and involve those who should know better (MDs) in the process. Then proudly point to such a program as "the solution". The physicians I know who are involved in addiction treatment and/or serve addicted populations (and it is many of them) know this better than some writer in The Guardian, cherry picking some "very small" studies. The public would be well advised to understand that "studies" are meant to be used by those who know how. They are not to be cited by the untrained out of context.

I am approaching the wall of text I dislike so I will stop here. I refuse to engage in any idiots attempt to enter into a "drugs are not that dangerous" argument because such an argument IS idiotic. Nor is the comparing of one bad thing to another in an attempt to justify bad things smart or worth of argument.