[Newsbot]

Title: We owe it to drug addicts to be judgmental
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2013-07-26 16:36:56
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

Since it appears we can't have enough topics discussing the use of drugs in Canada and in light of the recent Corey Monteith's untimely death I found this opinion article and thought it might be different enough to be worth posting.

But before the hand wringing and accusations about the credibility of the author begin, perhaps people should look at the credentials of the person and organzition he represents before saying he's just a hack with an agenda because there are always 2 sides to every argument.

[andyt]

treatment and prevention absolutely should be given much more attention - it's expensive tho. One thing that everybody agrees is that there are not enough treatment places. If an addict is ready to quit they are put on a waiting list for rehab and told to stay clean in the mean time - by the time a space opens up, they've relapsed. Before we talk about mandatory treatment, we need to make immediate treatment available for anybody that wants it. I would like to see the author back up his claim that forced treatment is as effective long term as volutary treatment. We can get anybody clean by locking them away from drugs - keeping them clean is another matter. And we can't lock them in jail to keep them away from drugs - many come out of jail with a habit they didn't have when they went in.

First, let's put the 4 t o5 million high risk drinkers in mandatory treatment. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/alc/index-eng.php That will do more good than focusing on the 60 to 90 thousand heroin addicts in Canada. (That latter number has exploded since we invaded Afghanistan, putting the Taliban, who were very anti-drug at the time out of power. Lots of cheap horse flooding the streets now). http://www.providencehealthcare.org/salome/faqs.html

Alcohol is by far the biggest drug scourge in Canada. Well that and cigs, which cost the healthcare system a fortune. Mandatory treatment for smokers I say, and if they can't quit, lock em up.

Pot, meanwhile, has almost no health care costs associated with it, lethality is close to nil. So let's legalized pot and outlaw the dangerous drugs.

We owe it to the boozehounds to be judgemental.

[andyt]

$1:

Trudeau's proposal is music to the ears of retired Winnipeg police detective Bill Vandergraff, who used to investigate gangs, drugs and street crime.

"We have to start thinking about how we're using our police resources and focus on proper crime, and not adult consensual behaviour," Vandergraff told CBC News.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... e-pot.html

$1:

Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
More and more police officers are realizing the War on Drugs is a mistake

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z2aCb9jeX1
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

$1:

Why it’s time to legalize marijuana
After decades of wasted resources, clogged courtrooms and a shift in public perception, let’s end the war on weed

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/10/why- ... marijuana/

$1:

Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies. Those policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs.

Although those who speak publicly for LEAP are people from the law enforcement and criminal justice communities, a large number of our supporting members do not have such experience. You don’t have to have law enforcement experience to join us.

By continuing to fight the so-called “War on Drugs,” the US government has worsened these problems of society instead of alleviating them. A system of regulation and control of these substances (by the government, replacing the current system of control by the black market) would be a less harmful, less costly, more ethical, and more effective public policy.

http://www.leap.cc/about/who-we-are/

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

putting the Taliban, who were very anti-drug at the time out of power. Lots of cheap horse flooding the streets now).

You really don't know anything, if you think that's true.


The ultimate dodge; start talking about heroin by banning alcohol.

Why you think anyone should take you and Curt seriously is beyond me.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Evidence trumps ideology over public health benefits of Insite
Opinion: Harm reduction saves lives

By Thomas Kerr and Julio Montaner, Special to The Vancouver Sun July 24, 2013


It has been nearly 10 years since Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site opened and two years since the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously determined that it should remain open to protect public health.

A large body of scientific evidence demonstrates that Insite and other harm reduction programs, such as needle exchanges, are effective in reducing the harms associated with illicit drug use. Sadly, ideological debate about harm reduction continues, despite widespread agreement among health authorities, including the World Health Organization, that such programs are essential to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other drug-related harms.

A recently released report summarizing 15 years of data on the drug situation in Vancouver provides further evidence that harm reduction programs have helped reduce illicit drug use and improve public health: fewer people are injecting drugs; more are accessing addiction treatment; and HIV transmission related to injection drug use has plummeted.

Likewise, a large body of scientific evidence shows that Insite is meeting its objectives. Peer-reviewed studies involving dozens of researchers from Canada, Australia, Britain and the U.S. demonstrate clearly that Insite does not increase crime or perpetuate active drug use. More than 30 peer-reviewed studies show that Insite saves lives and health care dollars, reduces disease transmission, and promotes entry into addiction treatment.

The program now has the support of leading national health organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Nurses, and the Canadian Public Health Association. Health organizations in other parts of Canada are now advocating for similar programs in their jurisdictions.

Still, critics continue to launch personal attacks against scientists, misrepresent existing research, and cite bogus reports that have never been subjected to scientific scrutiny or published in recognized journals, reducing public discourse about harm reduction to the same level as past debates about global warming and the harm of cigarette smoking.

The most vocal of those arguing against Insite is the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC). This is an organization that covertly accepted RCMP funding to produce pseudo-scientific reports on Insite. Ultimately the RCMP acknowledged their wrongdoing and distanced themselves from the reports, admitting the reports were commissioned to “provide an alternative analysis” to existing research and “did not meet conventional academic standards.” Ironically, when a Supreme Court justice asked lawyers representing the federal government if they had any scientific evidence indicating that Insite was not meeting its objectives, they did not offer one of the DPNC reports — they offered nothing.

David Berner and the DPNC continue to get the facts all wrong. Anyone who has spent any time in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside knows that Insite was opened and continues to be operated by the Portland Hotel Society and Vancouver Coastal Health. It was not created or ever operated by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. Rather, our centre was contracted, through an open and competitive process, to conduct an arm’s-length scientific evaluation of Insite.

Recently, the DPNC has repeated claims that drug overdose deaths in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside have increased since the facility opened. This is not only false, but in citing data from the B.C. Vital Statistics agency, they continue to recklessly lump all drug-related deaths together, including many causes of death that bear no relevance to Insite.

The claim stands in stark contrast to a 2011 study published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, which showed overdose deaths around Insite had declined by 35 per cent. The Lancet study systematically reviewed each recorded death and involved the use of appropriate statistical methods. Dr. Chris Beyrer, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health who was invited by The Lancet to write a commentary to accompany the article, stated: “Supervised injection facilities clearly have an important part to play in communities affected by injection drug use. They should be expanded to other affected sites … on the basis of the life-saving effects.”

Harm reduction programs should remain essential components of our response to illicit drug use. Still, we must do more to further reduce drug-related harm.

In doing so we must recognize that we have an ethical duty to base our responses to drug-related harm on the best available evidence.

By now, that evidence should be resoundingly clear: Harm reduction — including Insite — saves lives.

Dr. Thomas Kerr is the is the co-director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Julio Montaner is the director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the chair in AIDS Research and head of division of AIDS in the Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, and the past-president of the International AIDS Society.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op- ... story.html

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

putting the Taliban, who were very anti-drug at the time out of power. Lots of cheap horse flooding the streets now).

You really don't know anything, if you think that's true.


The ultimate dodge; start talking about heroin by banning alcohol.

Why you think anyone should take you and Curt seriously is beyond me.

Got anything to back up your position besides the usual insults?

$1:

Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world, ahead of Burma (Myanmar), the "Golden Triangle", and Latin America since 1992, excluding the year 2001.[1] Afghanistan is the main producer of opium in the "Golden Crescent". Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule...

In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002....

By November 2001, the collapse of the economy and the scarcity of other sources of revenue forced many of the country's farmers to resort back to growing opium for export.(1,300 km² in 2004 according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.)

In December 2001, a number of prominent Afghans met in Bonn, Germany, under United Nations (UN) auspices to develop a plan to reestablish the State of Afghanistan, including provisions for a new constitution and national elections. As part of that agreement, the United Kingdom (UK) was designated the lead country in addressing counter-narcotics issues in Afghanistan. Afghanistan subsequently implemented its new constitution and held national elections. On December 7, 2004, Hamid Karzai was formally sworn in as president of a democratic Afghanistan."[20]



Regional security risks and levels of opium poppy cultivation in 2007–2008.
Two of the following three growing seasons saw record levels of opium poppy cultivation. Corrupt officials may have undermined the government's enforcement efforts. Afghan farmers claimed that "government officials take bribes for turning a blind eye to the drug trade while punishing poor opium growers".[21]

Another obstacle to getting rid of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is the reluctant collaboration between US forces and Afghan warlords in hunting drug traffickers. In the absence of Taliban, the warlords largely control the opium trade but are also highly useful to the US forces in scouting, providing local intelligence, keeping their own territories clean from Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, and even taking part in military operations.

While U.S. and allied efforts to combat the drug trade have been stepped up, the effort is hampered by the fact that many suspected drug traffickers are now top officials in the Karzai government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_prod ... fghanistan

[martin14]

Holy fuck andy, are you now so desperate you'll resort to editing a leftist wiki entry,
conveniently leaving out a few points.


Here, let me repost your garbage in full, without your "..."

$1:

Warlord period (1989–1994)

When the Soviet Army was forced to withdraw in 1989, a power vacuum was created. Various Mujahideen factions started fighting against each other for power. With the discontinuation of Western support, they resorted ever more to poppy cultivation to finance their military existence.

Do you know who the Mujahideen were andy ? Bin Laden and his buddies.
So the Taliban has been running opium since 1989.

$1:

Rise of the Taliban (1994–2001)

During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999,.[15]

Meaning they were directly responsible for making more and more.

$1:

In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

However, some people believe that certain parties benefited from the price increase during the ban. Some even believe it was a form of Market manipulation on the part of certain drug lords. Dried opium, unlike most agricultural products, can easily be stored for long periods without refrigeration or other expensive equipment. With huge stashes of opium stored in secret hideaways. Taliban, and other groups became involved in the drug trade were in theory able to make huge personal profits during the price spikes after the 2000 ban and the chaos following 9/11.[17][18]

But, the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11.. Suuuuuuuuuuure.



This is from the exact page you quoted, but I guess you just 'forgot'
to copy / paste certain bits.



So you do know something. You know how to lie and deliberately try to mislead
people, and you just got caught.





Yep, the Taliban are anti drug alright.
They even managed to convince an idiot like you.

[andyt]

What does the Taliban knowing or not about 9/11 have to do with heroin? They drastically reduced production. {"Some people believe..." Some people think the moon is made of cheese too.} That ended with the our invasion and the rise of the warlords. And the Taliban needing money also went back to the drug trade. Whatever, one unintended consequence of the war was the rise in poppy growing.

$1:

KABUL, Afghanistan — The effort to win over Afghans on former Taliban turf in Marja has put American and NATO commanders in the unusual position of arguing against opium eradication, pitting them against some Afghan officials who are pushing to destroy the harvest.


Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Afghan soldiers and American Marines last month in Marja. Some Afghan officials pushed for opium eradication there.
From Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal on down, the military’s position is clear: “U.S. forces no longer eradicate,” as one NATO official put it. Opium is the main livelihood of 60 to 70 percent of the farmers in Marja, which was seized from Taliban rebels in a major offensive last month. American Marines occupying the area are under orders to leave the farmers’ fields alone.

[OnTheIce]

martin14 martin14:

Holy fuck andy, are you now so desperate you'll resort to editing a leftist wiki entry, conveniently leaving out a few points.

They even managed to convince an idiot like you.

A fine job at defining andy...well said.

[bootlegga]

I don't see any rationale for being judgmental - I certainly don't like drugs and what they can do to a person, but that's irrelevant to the entire conversation if you ask me. I pity them and most especially, I pity their loved ones.

Addiction is a nasty thing - just ask anyone addicted to anything, booze, cigarettes, online gaming, whatever. People afflicted by sch do not need scorn, they need help.

And studies have shown that's it's very expensive for society to manage, simply because addicts commit crimes to afford their habit, spend an inordinate amount of time in hospitals as well as other associated problems that come with regular drug use. After all, which costs society more - a drug addict who gets AIDS/HIV by sharing a needle or one who doesn't? Places like Insite are an overall good thing IMO.

Besides, Monteith didn't use Insite to shoot up, he did it on his own, which just goes to show the value of Insite. Had he used it, maybe he wouldn't have OD'ed.

No matter what the editorial argues, the two are not connected at all, except perhaps in the mind of the writer.

[andyt]

What the OP is arguing against is the total lack of enforcement of open drug use in the DTES. Addicts shooting up in plain sight, then puking and lying there in their own vomit, zonked out, and nobody does anything. I saw a show about cops in the DTES. A woman cop asked a guy smoking crack what he was doing. He launched into a tirade: "Leave me alone you f'n cnt" etc, and she just backed off. Said to the camera how frustrated she was that she couldn't do anything because of her orders. Yet in other parts of the city, the cops will confiscate open beers and even write tickets for it. I do think it's gone too far in the DTES. VANDU protesting building a new housing development because it's a place where drug users like to shoot up, and being taken seriously, for example.

Harm reduction is supposed to be one of 4 pillars for dealing with drug use. We need to spend a lot more money on prevention and rehabilitation, two other very important pillars. Harm reduction is just supposed to reduce the harm to people (and society) to people who will use drugs anyway, but it's like we've given up and just let them use all they want and we just do harm reduction. The idea with legalization and regulation of all drugs is that then treat the problem from a medical perspective instead of a criminal one. Put more resources into that approach. There would still be plenty of enforcement needed for people breaking the regulations, just a lot less than is currently the case, opening up resources that can be used more effectively than just trying to jail people for drugs, which we see doesn't work very well.

As for being judgemental, the writer is really making the same argument some people have advanced for single mothers - we should be shaming them to reduce the incidence of kids born to single mothers. Is that really a road we want to go down?