Professor advocates heroin use

[mahagonny]

Well, if we're truly thinking 'solutions' how about just bombing the hell out of those several provinces in Afghanistan?

[Bbmaj7b5]

Alcohol is one of the worst things you can have in your system if you're driving. But heroin's bad too, because you could nod off. Or you might need to pull over in order to get out and throw up.
Fifty milligrams of benadryl causes people to drive worse than two mixed drinks, according to research (so my doctor tells me), but it's perfectly legal.

Your VHS copy of "Panic in Needle Park" is overdue.

[Wahoo Redux]

Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.

Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction.  That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...

No.  Just no.  Particularly not heroin.

[financeguy]

I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.

I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.

[mahagonny]

Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.

Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction.  That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...

No.  Just no.  Particularly not heroin.

So sorry, Professor.

I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.

I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.

Maybe 'my body my choice' is not really part of libertarian thinking if the thought process was the pregnancy was something someone else did to you.

It's probably way too late to note the irony in this, but....

Dr. Hart, 54, the first tenured African-American science professor at Columbia, is a gadfly among drug researchers and a rock star among advocates for decriminalizing drugs.

Rock stars are, of course, the problem, and how dangerous drugs became accepted in middle America.

And then:

Unlike past academic advocates for drug use, like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Dass, who both experimented with L.S.D. at Harvard University, Dr. Hart rejects as "self-serving" the distinction between so-called good drugs, like psychedelics, and more maligned substances, like heroin and methamphetamine. All, he said, have their place.

Read what John Lennon and George Harrison said about LSD later in life and you'll give it a pass.

[ergative]

I have no problem with allowing people the freedom to make their own choices so long as they bear the responsibilities of those choices.

I will say I'm quite disappointed with the lack of female support of drug legalization. The "my body my choice" philosophy seems to go out the window when it is related to cutting hair without an expensive license, not wearing a car seat belt or motorcycle helmet, using drugs, hiring a prostitute or any other activity in which people exercise choice over their own body. My pro-feminist acceptance of their agency leads me to blame women who are 51% of the population and could thus unilaterally legalize whatever they want for this problem. If you're a woman who is pro-choice and not a libertarian (philosophically at least regardless of party) you are the problem in our "for thee but not for me" culture.

I understand your point, but seat belts aren't just a 'my body my choice' issue. Bodies become moving projectiles in accidents, and seatbelts prevent your corpse from killing other people.

Maybe forgoing airbags would be a better example to slot in there?

[Kron3007]

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. .  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

Regarding guns, it is the same question.  What policies will result in the best outcomes.  This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc. 

Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

[Kron3007]

Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.

Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction.  That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...

No.  Just no.  Particularly not heroin.

I'm sorry to hear this and have also lost friends in part to drug addiction. However, this dosn't really support prohibition, where we push addicts from society instead of offering help and support.  Criminalization only serves to make the issue worse and more dangerous whereas more moderate drug policy can help minimize harm.

Again, sorry for your loss.

[mahagonny]

oes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

Whereas the only thing the left will blame you for is failing to enroll in sensitivity training, thereby neglecting your opportunity to prevent anything bad happening to anyone in the future.

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things.  Legalization helps reduce harm and dosn't lead to increased abuse.  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

There are ways to fight the harm of substance abuse that don't involve the law, but just like contraception, it only works when it's tried. For example, we got Americans to quit smoking tobacco, not by making it illegal, but by making it uncool.

[marshwiggle]

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. .  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

Regarding guns, it is the same question.  What policies will result in the best outcomes.  This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc. 

Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.

Holding everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".

[Kron3007]

oes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

Whereas the only thing the left will blame you for is failing to enroll in sensitivity training, thereby neglecting your opportunity to prevent anything bad happening to anyone in the future.

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things.  Legalization helps reduce harm and dosn't lead to increased abuse.  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

There are ways to fight the harm of substance abuse that don't involve the law, but just like contraception, it only works when it's tried. For example, we got Americans to quit smoking tobacco, not by making it illegal, but by making it uncool.

Sensitivity training?  The left is the side trying to enact laws to regulate guns to address the issue.  Better than thoughts and prayers.

And yes, drug treatment programs only work when they are used, but criminalization makes them less accessable. 

Your example of smoking is great support for legalization. If you look at Canada Post cannabis legalization you will see that usage dropped amongst teens, likely because the cool factor is diminished.  Glad we agree.

[Kron3007]

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. .  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

Regarding guns, it is the same question.  What policies will result in the best outcomes.  This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc. 

Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.

Holding everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".

I have not heard that opinion.  I think most people, left or right, would support criminal charges in such a situation.  Perhaps there are some that disagree, but I hardly think that would have broad support.

[marshwiggle]

At the end of the day, the question (for drugs, gun, seatbelts, etc) should be what policies will result in the best outcomes.  In the case of drugs, making them illegal does not minimize their harm.  It leads to drug related violence, impure drugs that lead to death, and funnels money into the black market to support all sorts of things. .  Drugs won the war a long time ago, it is time to concede.

Regarding guns, it is the same question.  What policies will result in the best outcomes.  This is also a bit of a false comparison as not a lot of people are saying we should ban guns, just that they should be regulated in a more reasonable way including background checks, limits on capacity, etc. 

Ironic that when someone goes on a shooting spree, the "right" blames mental health, but when someone dies of an overdose they are just a loser junky that made poor choices...

(FWIW, I'm in favour of our gun restrictions in Canada...) I can't recall, even in the US, anyone claiming that someone on a shooting spree shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed for murder. However, I have heard lots of people on the left, when someone on drugs kills their child, or neglects a child who dies as a result, claim that the person has "suffered enough" and should not be held responsible.

Holding everyone responsible for their actions should be the case, regardless of what behaviour is "legal".

I have not heard that opinion.  I think most people, left or right, would support criminal charges in such a situation.  Perhaps there are some that disagree, but I hardly think that would have broad support.

From this case:

Prior to sentencing, Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Barry Morgan heard recommendations from an aboriginal sentencing circle.

While Morgan was not bound by those recommendations, the circle suggested Pauchay should not go to prison but should be reunited with his wife, Tracey Jimmy, and their other child.

The defence said the judge should consider a non-jail conditional sentence.

In passing sentence Friday,  the judge said Pauchay lacked insight into his behaviour and wasn't willing to accept responsibility for what happened.

So there are in fact those that don't want to treat this as criminal.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I'm with the libertarians on this one. What benefit has come from the drug war? Is there any evidence that prohibiting drugs has reduced their use or their availability to a greater extent than legalizing and regulating them would? I don't use drugs or knowingly consort with drug users, but I bet that I could track down some heroin before the end of the day if I really wanted to. And this isn't even to speak of the incredible amount of violence that accompanies the underground drug trade.

[Wahoo Redux]

Most heroin deaths are from overdoses and bad needles. Addicts stop after a while. Taken properly, the most serious side-effect of clean heroin is constipation.

Um...I just lost a family member to drug addiction.  That is a wee bit...I don't even know what to say...

No.  Just no.  Particularly not heroin.

I'm sorry to hear this and have also lost friends in part to drug addiction. However, this dosn't really support prohibition, where we push addicts from society instead of offering help and support.  Criminalization only serves to make the issue worse and more dangerous whereas more moderate drug policy can help minimize harm.

Again, sorry for your loss.

Thank you, that is very kind.  And thank you Mahagonny also.

I am a recovering alcoholic and drug addict with 34 years sobriety.  I had a great many friends who drank heavily, smoked bales of pot, took the hard psychedelics, and even cocaine.  Some of them are perfectly fine, some are not.

Some of us cannot handle mind-altering substances.  It does stuff to our thoughts and emotional balance and our ability to cope, and these substances create a powerful craving (in some of us) that can actually overpower even love of family, career, self-protection, health, etc.  I know there are some genetic components (that do not always manifest in offspring), some psychological components, and situational drivers, but the essential elements of addiction are part of us.

Some people can endure terrible trauma, emotional and psychological problems, life-altering frustrations, and do not become addicts.  Others of us have relatively happy lives, as I did when I developed my serious addiction problems.

The war on drugs is a disaster.  The entire approach to addiction should be changed.  I agree that expulsion and shame are not the way to go.  And actually, the support one receives when you admit you are recovering is amazing----in 34 years I have had exactly one person challenge me to have a beer, and the other partiers, drinks in hand, immediately swarmed to my defense.  I didn't even have to say "no."  I am entirely in favor of legalizing pot---it is far less damaging than alcohol---and even for legalizing many other drugs.

But the irresponsible statements of people like Professor Hart, no matter how brilliant he might be, do no one any good.   It sounds like Hart believes he has found the cure for one of society's great ills, particularly for African-Americans.  No way, dude. 

I don't have the answer for how society should deal with people who can use drugs et al. responsibly.  Denying what drugs are and do is simply irresponsible, however.