So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[Wahoo Redux]

1) Is this Canadian drug user org a serious legit organization, or some sort of internet troll thing?   If it is, is there anything comparable on this side of the border?   I say this because, like NAMBLA,

I never thought to equate NAMBLA child sex advocates with drug users.  Where in the world do you get these ideas, K16?

I hate to always beat this dead horse, but these sorts of gratuitous comparisons are a sign that real logic or factual reasoning are not present.  The point is misdirection and demagogy.

NAMBLA, BTW, is utterly powerless and largely pointless unless we pay attention to it.

[kaysixteen]

Did you read what I said or are you just interested in dismissing me because you do not like the implications of my remarks?   NAMBLA is a real group, and they do advocate a position that the vast majority of Americans find disgusting and unacceptable.   This Canadian 'people who use drugs' outfit is *just a wee bit less outre* than NAMBLA is, and would be even more similar to NAMBLA here.   IOW, most Americans do not now and will almost certainly *never* believe in the positions that the Canadian junkie association advocates.   It does not take a PhD in logic to see the connections.  I for one will *never* vote for anyone who advocates passing out free drugs to addicts, legalizing recreational opioids, etc., and my experiences here in Rusty City only have hardened me in this thinking. 

BTW, I have also noticed that no one who advocates free injection sites to be used by addicts who will be expected to BYO drugs has answered my question regarding where said users are to get the funds to acquire such pharmaceuticals?

[Wahoo Redux]

Did you read what I said or are you just interested in dismissing me because you do not like the implications of my remarks?   

I simply find your comments false equivalencies. 

[Parasaurolophus]

BTW, I have also noticed that no one who advocates free injection sites to be used by addicts who will be expected to BYO drugs has answered my question regarding where said users are to get the funds to acquire such pharmaceuticals?

If it were up to me, they wouldn't need to pay for them.

You know, most of them are not particularly happy about being addicted, and don't particularly enjoy it. They're just trapped.

[Kron3007]

Did you read what I said or are you just interested in dismissing me because you do not like the implications of my remarks? 

I simply find your comments false equivalencies. 

Because they are....

[Kron3007]

BTW, I have also noticed that no one who advocates free injection sites to be used by addicts who will be expected to BYO drugs has answered my question regarding where said users are to get the funds to acquire such pharmaceuticals?

If it were up to me, they wouldn't need to pay for them.

You know, most of them are not particularly happy about being addicted, and don't particularly enjoy it. They're just trapped.

This also isn't a black and white decision.  In a legal framework, where drugs need to be paid for, there would be charitable agencies (private or public) that give them out for those in need, along with helping access various services.

The really messed up part of all this is that many opiates are actually legal (with prescription) and there is a safe supply structure in place.  We just don't allow users to access the safe supply, instead leaving them to buy contaminated street drugs to prop up organized crime. Even in the case of fentanyl (a legal pharmaceutical) which is causing tons of death, the primary reason is inaccurate labelling and dosage.  If users knew what was in their drugs, we would have far fewer overdoses and deaths.  It is all quite backward.

[ciao_yall]

Did you read what I said or are you just interested in dismissing me because you do not like the implications of my remarks?  NAMBLA is a real group, and they do advocate a position that the vast majority of Americans find disgusting and unacceptable.  This Canadian 'people who use drugs' outfit is *just a wee bit less outre* than NAMBLA is, and would be even more similar to NAMBLA here.  IOW, most Americans do not now and will almost certainly *never* believe in the positions that the Canadian junkie association advocates.  It does not take a PhD in logic to see the connections.  I for one will *never* vote for anyone who advocates passing out free drugs to addicts, legalizing recreational opioids, etc., and my experiences here in Rusty City only have hardened me in this thinking. 

What is so terrible about the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association? If people want to dress up and quote The Godfather they are more than welcome to do so.

[marshwiggle]

BTW, I have also noticed that no one who advocates free injection sites to be used by addicts who will be expected to BYO drugs has answered my question regarding where said users are to get the funds to acquire such pharmaceuticals?

If it were up to me, they wouldn't need to pay for them.

You know, most of them are not particularly happy about being addicted, and don't particularly enjoy it. They're just trapped.

Thunder Bay paramedics report naloxone use jumped 5 times over previous year

'Russian roulette'
Even five years ago, Ross said paramedics weren't called nearly as often to deal with overdoses as they are now, even with naloxone — also known under the brand name Narcan — much more prevalent in the community.
"The harm reduction in that regard may be working in keeping people out of the hospital but may be not necessarily the best for these people because you know there's underlying addiction issues or mental health issues that aren't being assessed or treated," he said.

"So they're just continuing to use narcotics like they normally would and giving themselves Narcan and nothing's really changing, it's kind of just a big loop."

That means some cases where people are overdosing multiple times in a single day — or other dangerous behaviours.

"We've even had issues where there'd be a couple people taking, seeing how much opiates they can take before they go unconscious and then reviving themselves, or having their friend revive them, with Narcan," he said. "Almost like a Russian roulette-type of game, which is completely ridiculous."

That sounds like they're enjoying it quite a bit.

"Harm reduction" = "Moral hazard"

Moral hazard can lead to personal, professional, and economic harm when individuals or entities in a transaction can engage in risky behavior because the other parties are contractually bound to assume the negative consequences.

In other words, when people perceive something as "safer", they push the boundaries farther.

[dismalist]

...

"Harm reduction" = "Moral hazard"

Moral hazard can lead to personal, professional, and economic harm when individuals or entities in a transaction can engage in risky behavior because the other parties are contractually bound to assume the negative consequences.

In other words, when people perceive something as "safer", they push the boundaries farther.

Careful, moral hazard does not imply that behavioral changes overcome the benefits. They merely reduce the benefits.

Otherwise, we'd have to be against fire insurance [more smoking in bed], seat belts [more reckless driving], condoms [more sex in spite of STD's] and so on.

Charging for nalaxone helps, just as condoms are not free, but in the end, no one, certainly no medic, is gonna let somebody go down the tubes to save $25.

[Kron3007]

BTW, I have also noticed that no one who advocates free injection sites to be used by addicts who will be expected to BYO drugs has answered my question regarding where said users are to get the funds to acquire such pharmaceuticals?

If it were up to me, they wouldn't need to pay for them.

You know, most of them are not particularly happy about being addicted, and don't particularly enjoy it. They're just trapped.

Thunder Bay paramedics report naloxone use jumped 5 times over previous year

'Russian roulette'
Even five years ago, Ross said paramedics weren't called nearly as often to deal with overdoses as they are now, even with naloxone — also known under the brand name Narcan — much more prevalent in the community.
"The harm reduction in that regard may be working in keeping people out of the hospital but may be not necessarily the best for these people because you know there's underlying addiction issues or mental health issues that aren't being assessed or treated," he said.

"So they're just continuing to use narcotics like they normally would and giving themselves Narcan and nothing's really changing, it's kind of just a big loop."

That means some cases where people are overdosing multiple times in a single day — or other dangerous behaviours.

"We've even had issues where there'd be a couple people taking, seeing how much opiates they can take before they go unconscious and then reviving themselves, or having their friend revive them, with Narcan," he said. "Almost like a Russian roulette-type of game, which is completely ridiculous."

That sounds like they're enjoying it quite a bit.

"Harm reduction" = "Moral hazard"

Moral hazard can lead to personal, professional, and economic harm when individuals or entities in a transaction can engage in risky behavior because the other parties are contractually bound to assume the negative consequences.

In other words, when people perceive something as "safer", they push the boundaries farther.

Increased use of Naloxone dosnt necessarily mean there is an increased use of opiates, overdoses, or deaths.  It could simply be that we have made it more available as a tool to treat the problem that already existed.  The timeline f this article is shortly after the requirement for a prescription for naloxone was removed, so all is shows is that making naloxone more available has increased its use, as intended.  Likely, this prevented deaths, as intended.

I find it bizarre that you are implying treating overdoses is a bad thing.  Should we just let people die?

 

[marshwiggle]

...

"Harm reduction" = "Moral hazard"

Moral hazard can lead to personal, professional, and economic harm when individuals or entities in a transaction can engage in risky behavior because the other parties are contractually bound to assume the negative consequences.

In other words, when people perceive something as "safer", they push the boundaries farther.

Careful, moral hazard does not imply that behavioral changes overcome the benefits. They merely reduce the benefits.

That's right; to put it another way, lowering perceived risk will actually make some people engage in more risk than they would have previously.

I find it bizarre that you are implying treating overdoses is a bad thing.  Should we just let people die?

No, but we need to acknowledge that any attempt to reduce harm will result in some people doing things that are more undesirable than they would have previously.

That's a criticism of the approach that cannot be simply ignored.

[dismalist]

In a calculus of lives, while reducing harm induces moral hazard, it at the same time saves more lives than possible before the development of an amelioration device.

There are some addicts who are dying all the time on account of accidental overdoses. An amelioration device will induce some of them to behavior more riskily. More of those will die. More of the rest will survive.

Proof: The risk lovers could have increased their risk without the amelioration device. Just OD, man and see what happens!

More lives saved is better than fewer lives saved.

[kaysixteen]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.   But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.   What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

[dismalist]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.  But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.  What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Giving dope away free is not a good idea at all. Cheaper drug, more consumption. Like alcohol and McMansions and Higher Ed.

What is useful in the extreme is making sure that the supply of drugs available is not compromised in quality and dose. Legalization does that. At the moment, doctors are scared out of their brains to prescribe this stuff on account the DEA is after them, insurance or no insurance.

Not all druggies are suicidal. Many live normal lives. Legalization would help them. Narcan is for the others.

The needle exchanges help us! Fewer dangerous needles lying around to hurt non-addicts.

Legalization saves lives.

[Parasaurolophus]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.   But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.   What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Do you have any loved ones whose addiction has had an impact on you?

Just in my immediate family, I told you about two of my brothers. I also had a long-term partner who became addicted to a bad one, and sank her entire salary (twice mine at the time) into it.