Canada and government subsidized heroin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seeksadvice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’re not exactly doing a great job in this country either - the socialized medicine states are doing better than we are at this bit.

Drug addicts aren’t usually the kinds of people who have a lot of money to pay out of pocket for treatment.
 
You realize right, that this is basically the same thing that the mafia, or other criminal entity, does in an extortion racket? Pay us “X” or you’ll have a little “accident”? That’s basically the same thing. You pay for our drugs or else we’ll steal from you, kill you, maybe even rape you before stealing from you and killing you?

Darklight: in regard to rehab service and failure rate… it’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Every druggy I’ve met, who hasn’t figured out that’s a bad path, blames everybody else for the situation he/she is in. Society failed me, the treatment program failed me, my family failed me. Have seen tons of people go into treatment and until they are ready to assume responsibility for their actions, it doesn’t do anything. It’s not “treatment failure,” it’s the failure of the person to follow through with what is required.

Unless people are expected to be responsible for their own actions, they won’t change their behaviors. Giving people “free” (at taxpayer’s expense) heroin simply enables their habit. Think too of the message that sends to kids. Heroin must not be that bad, the province is giving it away.
 
I’ll admit ‘damage’ was too strong but chronic use does have long-term effects, some of which are still unknown and damage is still highly probable.
Hydrocodone and oxycodone were prescribed in the following study. How much can the results be applicable to diamorphine? I would say quite a bit because the three share the same basic structure.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Heroin_-_Heroine.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Oxycodone.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Hydrocodone_skeletal.svg


There’s also this review:

 
Last edited:
Very interesting, thanks.

I know hydrocodone has caused some people to go deaf.

But as far as i know right now Diamorphine is very safe.

Morphine is well established as being safe in the body, and heroin is metabolized into morphine (Diacetylmorphine becomes Morphine in the body).
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
But as far as i know right now Diamorphine is very safe.
Click to expand...
We better hope that’s the case long term.
Preventing people from getting involved with drugs and providing the best rehab possible are so important but our leaders don’t care.
 
Seeksadvice said:
You realize right, that this is basically the same thing that the mafia, or other criminal entity, does in an extortion racket? Pay us “X” or you’ll have a little “accident”? That’s basically the same thing. You pay for our drugs or else we’ll steal from you, kill you, maybe even rape you before stealing from you and killing you?
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous. The drugs are not provided only for the purpose of preventing the scenario you describe. They are provided primarily out of a genuine desire to mitigate the harm the addict would encounter if left to use street drugs. The addict is not in a position of power in this exchange.

Also, my daughter died from taking street drugs. I am deeply offended by your callous use of the term “druggy” to describe people like her. You really ought to stop it.
 
But you could show a bit more gentleness, one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. There’s no need to use terms like ‘druggy’. Drug addict is sufficient.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
Preventing people from getting involved with drugs and providing the best rehab possible
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why the war on drugs (to stop the availability and profiteering) and good rehabilitation is so important. If these people were about rehabilitation, it would be a non issue, but as many of them have said, it’s about ‘managing’ and ‘accepting’.

The same arguments are used with contraception, kids are going to have sex anyway, so may as well make it as safe as possible for them, and if it’s now apparently ‘safe’ then why not do it? thus it increases the problem rather then reduces.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
Seeksadvice said:
it’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest here - if this were another physical health issue, would we say this?

Also, that’s not even a very good saying. There are lots of things that you can’t do without good tools. I’m a pretty good pianist, but I can’t make Chopin sound good on a tinny, out of tune piano.
 
josh987654321 said:
40.png
Spyridon:
It’s called harm reduction.
Click to expand...
It should be called rehab.
Click to expand...
You cannot force an addict to quit, full stop.

For alcoholics, they have “wet” facilities, so why should it be different for heroin addicts? At the very least, they are going to be get a safe dosage, with clean needles, and in place where health care is available.

I have never understood why this is controversial. These people are ill, and making their illness illegal out of some misplaced sense of moral outrage won’t do them any good. Would you ban an alcoholic from a liquor store?
 
Seeksadvice said:
I am not known for my gentleness. I hear about the “victims” of overdoses, but yet there is so little said about the actual victims of crimes that druggies commit. If somebody volunteers to buy and take whatever is being slung by their local dealer, aren’t they, in effect, electing to commit suicide? It would be like going out to the garage, whipping up a mix of stuff, and then deciding to shoot up with it, yes?

As far as treatment goes, you get a set of tools, what you do with them is up to you. You may not make Chopin sound good on a bad piano, but you can use the piano to play Chopin.

As far as other physical issues goes, addiction isn’t really like a lot of other physical issues. Some physical issues there is nothing you can do about… too many trinucleotide repeats in the right gene and congrats, you’ve got Huntington’s. Mutations in a tumor suppressor gene, congrats, you’ve got retinoblastoma. There’s one big difference with addictions, unless exposure occurs involuntarily: every addict had a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
I love these great exhibitions of Christian mercy. Makes me all warm and fuzzy.
 
Seeksadvice said:
All at taxpayer expense, while they are free to go out and do whatever. If taxpayers are paying for it, the druggies/drunks/whatevers should be incarcerated and removed from society so that they can’t harm people.
Click to expand...
Well, addicts who have to find other ways to finance their habit commit a great deal of property crime. You can either pay to ease their need for the drug, or pay in higher policing and insurance costs, and the latter costs a lot more.

So let’s get back to your incredible displays of Christian mercy and love.
 
niceatheist said:
Well, addicts who have to find other ways to finance their habit commit a great deal of property crime. You can either pay to ease their need for the drug, or pay in higher policing and insurance costs, and the latter costs a lot more.
Click to expand...
OR the 3rd option, we pay for rehab. You know, with the goal of helping them to get off the drugs and we continue the war on drugs so that there is less availability for people to get hooked on it in the first place.

Thank you for reading.
 
josh987654321 said:
Which is why the war on drugs (to stop the availability and profiteering) and good rehabilitation is so important. If these people were about rehabilitation, it would be a non issue, but as many of them have said, it’s about ‘managing’ and ‘accepting’.
Click to expand...
The ‘War on Drugs’ could use some adjustments.
Rehab is not cheap. But strangely enough they can find tons of money on a variety of non-essentials like public art or military missions we shouldn’t be involved in. I also sense many feel defeated.
Seeksadvice said:
I hear about the “victims” of overdoses
Click to expand...
Are they not victims? They are victims of a society that abandoned morality. Many are misguided by our wicked societies into snares and become possessed. Drug abusers can be from any background.
 
Last edited:
josh987654321 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Well, addicts who have to find other ways to finance their habit commit a great deal of property crime. You can either pay to ease their need for the drug, or pay in higher policing and insurance costs, and the latter costs a lot more.
Click to expand...
OR the 3rd option, we pay for rehab. You know, with the goal of helping them to get off the drugs and we continue the war on drugs so that there is less availability for people to get hooked on it in the first place.

Thank you for reading.
Click to expand...
And once again, you can no more force a heroin addict to quit than you can an alcoholic.
 
niceatheist said:
At the very least, they are going to be get a safe dosage, with clean needles, and in place where health care is available.
Click to expand...
And I would be totally fine with that so long as it was to manage withdrawal symptoms with the goal of getting them off the drugs. And in doing so, you absolutely keep up the war on drugs to reduce the production and sale, thus the availability so people are not getting introduced and hooked on it in the first place.

Thank you for reading.
 
Really, because I’m not politically correct about some topics? Tell me, why should druggies/drunks/etc. be allowed to get their fix on the taxpayer’s dime all while being out and about and doing who knows what? Tell me, is the person who gets turned into a pancake on the road by a heroin druggy any less dead if the druggy got the fix from the government or the street before driving?

I like coffee, perhaps maybe the government should subsidize my coffee supply? I get awfully cranky without it.
 
josh987654321 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
At the very least, they are going to be get a safe dosage, with clean needles, and in place where health care is available.
Click to expand...
And I would be totally fine with that so long as it was to manage withdrawal symptoms with the goal of getting them off the drugs. And in doing so, you absolutely keep up the war on drugs to reduce the production and sale, thus the availability so people are not getting introduced and hooked on it in the first place.

Thank you for reading.
Click to expand...
Because doing the same thing repeatedly with bad results is not the definition of insanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top