Drug Injection Sites

[MrLenny1]

Total drug eradication would be great.
Parts of Malaysia do not allow opium use for terminal
cancer patients I hear. Goverment claims if they let it in
it will swell to the streets.
US Pharma companies are over there lobbying.

 

[petrus61]

I would like to weigh in by being highly judgmental, and saying that I'm a better person than many other people, although potentially a worse person than other many other other people. I think people who I disapprove of should be forcibly removed from wherever they are, and made to go somewhere else, AND STAY THERE.

That is all that needs to be said.

That conveniently takes the burden off your shoulders and puts it on someone else’s. Why didn’t I think of that?

 

[jmlee]

Safe injection sites have been a significant success in Vancouver where there's a serious opiod problem. Reduced overdose death rate and reduced disease transmission. Their model is being examined for implementation in some other Canadian cities.

 

[jasmangan]

Anyone who has to live by, work next to, or just walk by a methadone clinic knows this is a bad idea.

 

[Common Tater]

What do you think?

I think that the declaration of the "war on some drugs" in the 1970s and the spread of AIDS in the 1980s were not coincidental. I remember as a kid going shopping with my mom and picking up boxes of disposable needles for my diabetic sister. Mom would pick up a huge box of them off the shelf and put it in a shopping cart, just like buying a box of breakfast cereal. Then one day we went shopping and the shelf that had the needles was empty. I don't know how Mom got the needles for my sister after that. That was a long time ago and for some reason that change stuck in my memory.

Another thing that stuck in my memory was one of these early anti-drug presentations that was given in school. To indicate how long ago this was the presentation was a slide show, on actual slides, with one of the teachers taking cues from an audio tape on when to advance the slide. The presentation made a big deal that street drugs were an unknown quantity and anything could be in them. This was different than the drugs made by the pharmaceutical industry, where they were made in very clean places by people that took great care in keeping them safe. Even as an ignorant little knucklehead in grade school I wondered why the drug dealers would be so careless with their customers, if they are dead then they can't come back for more. Also, if the drugs from the "professionals" were so clean then why don't the drug users just take those drugs?

Well, I got my answers. The drugs made by the professionals do in fact get in the hands of the drug addicts. And, the drug dealers would eventually learn that dead addicts don't come back and made sure their products were pure. The drugs on the street today are very pure, very cheap, and quite often easier to get than effective cold medicine.

Anti-drug messages in popular media, like Miami Vice, seemed to backfire to me. The drug kingpins were the "bad guys" but they drove fast cars and lived in big houses. People like fast cars and big houses, so the "bad guys" didn't seem so bad. Had they portrayed the dealers in a more realistic light, as pathetic people that are often barely literate, then that would just make the police look like idiots. I don't believe the police are idiots, they are simply given a task that is impossible to complete. It's the government officials that wrote these laws in the first place that are the idiots.

I had a discussion with someone where I said it was stupid to put people with an obvious substance abuse problem in prison. He replied that in prison these people get mental health counseling and help with their addiction. My question is, assuming that's true then why do we have to saddle these people with a felony on their criminal record when it was a mental health problem that drove them to take the drugs?

The only answer I could get is that the law was originally written only to punish the dealers. The problem became trying to separate the dealers from the users. So, the government (under "just say no" Reagan) decided that a single dose of a drug on a person was all the "evidence" the government needed to convict someone for dealing drugs. You'll notice this if you listen closely to the local news. No one is convicted for "drug possession", it's always "drug possession with an intent to deliver". The prosecutor won't have to "prove" they were a dealer, the presence of the drugs "proved" that.

Why are drugs illegal again? Because drug users commit crimes? Then catch them when they break a law, don't make up a new law. Because drug dealers are taking advantage of addicts? Then you should have stayed with putting the dealers in prison, punishing addicts for a mental health problem just looks bad. Then the government decided to punish people for having "drug paraphernalia". We've stepped so far from the original problem these legislators were trying to solve that the government is a greater threat than any drug dealer.

If we can't roll back the drug laws completely then it should at least be rolled back to where it all got started. That was so long ago now I'm not even sure what the original problem was supposed to be.

That was a longer post than I intended. If you read the whole thing then you've earned 15 internet gold stars.

 

[Common Tater]

Anyone who has to live by, work next to, or just walk by a methadone clinic knows this is a bad idea.

Nothing lives in a vacuum. These drug use sites are the alternative to something. Think about what that something is, and how that impacts society.

 

[MAJOR METAL]

I work for a police department in San Francisco, and I've never seen any other American city with so many needles. I seriously doubt that many of the cities' intravenous drug users would shoot up in such a place. This project is to help the political leadership feel better about themselves.

 

[Common Tater]

I work for a police department in San Francisco, and I've never seen any other American city with so many needles. I seriously doubt that many of the cities' intravenous drug users would shoot up in such a place. This project is to help the political leadership feel better about themselves.

That's fine by me. Let them do something that "feels good". Whenever someone gives me some sob story about the harms of drug addiction, and how we need to do something about it, then I have to bite my tongue to keep from blowing up in their face. My family has a history of diabetes and chronic pain. This "war on some drugs" has allowed me to compile my own sob stories to tell. This nonsense has made health care needlessly expensive and difficult to obtain.

I think I should bite my tongue now before I say something that gets me in trouble here.

 

[Joe Nerve]

I don't know what the answer to the drug epidemic is, but I don't think this is it. Happy though that people are coming up with new things to try... and who knows?

Biggest problem I see is when taxpayers start paying to keep drugs addicts out of work and shooting dope. That's a tough one to swallow, especially for those who found a way to pull themselves out of it.

I understand the stigma behind alcoholism and drug addiction, but I don't know if complete acceptance of the problem is part of the solution. Embracing and supporting the person who is looking for help is one thing. Supporting addiction is entirely different.

 

[Son of Wobble]

That's fine by me. Let them do something that "feels good". Whenever someone gives me some sob story about the harms of drug addiction, and how we need to do something about it, then I have to bite my tongue to keep from blowing up in their face. My family has a history of diabetes and chronic pain. This "war on some drugs" has allowed be to compile my own sob stories to tell. This nonsense has made health care needlessly expensive and difficult to obtain.

I think I should bite my tongue now before I say something that gets me in trouble here.

Again, 80% of the world opioid supply goes to the USA. So although your specific pain-relieving regimen is clearly frustrating you, one does have to leave a LITTLE bit for the other 95% of the world.

If you get a headache in, say, Germany, you have to make a persuasive case to the chemist before they will give you ten aspirin.

Here's some info I found on your state, Iowa, from 2017 suggesting that ODs have quadrupled there in the last 20 years.



Prescription opioid use has reached unprecedented levels.

Prescription drug overdose deaths have been rising since the early 1990s, and in 2009 surpassed transportation- related events as the leading cause of injury death in the U.S. OPRs are primarily driving the increase in these deaths. Since 1999, deaths due to OPRs have more than tripled in the U.S. In Iowa, while OPR overdose deaths and rates of opioid prescribing are low compared to other states, rates of prescription drug deaths since 1999 have quadrupled, making it only one of four states with such a dramatic increase.

Heroin overdose death rates in Iowa have increased more than nine-fold in the past 15 years.

The rapid growth of heroin death rates in Iowa is two to three times higher than the national average.

 

[Common Tater]

The rapid growth of heroin death rates in Iowa is two to three times higher than the national average.

Then maybe Iowa should get these same kind of safe drug use sites.

If you get a headache in, say, Germany, you have to make a persuasive case to the chemist before they will give you ten aspirin.

At the same time a marijuana dealer is easily "persuaded" with cash. How's that line from Star Wars go? Something like the tighter you make your grip the more slip through your fingers. There is no law strong enough to overcome the profit from illegal drugs. The tougher the law the higher the profit. This war on some drugs has been waged in some form in the USA for 100 years. You'd think at some point someone in the government would point out the absurdity of it all.

This has got so insane now that the cocaine dealers are making million dollar stealth submarines to sneak past the Coast Guard. They don't show up on radar, sonar, metal detectors, or video, that is unless you are right on top of them. And that's a big ocean to hide in.

The war on some drugs was lost before it even started.

 

[Son of Wobble]

Then maybe Iowa should get these same kind of safe drug use sites.



At the same time a marijuana dealer is easily "persuaded" with cash. How's that line from Star Wars go? Something like the tighter you make your grip the more slip through your fingers. There is no law strong enough to overcome the profit from illegal drugs. The tougher the law the higher the profit. This war on some drugs has been waged in some form in the USA for 100 years. You'd think at some point someone in the government would point out the absurdity of it all.

This has got so insane now that the cocaine dealers are making million dollar stealth submarines to sneak past the Coast Guard. They don't show up on radar, sonar, metal detectors, or video, that is unless you are right on top of them. And that's a big ocean to hide in.

The war on some drugs was lost before it even started.

I heartily agree with you that the whole thing is a huge racket on all sides.

 

[FingerDub]

I earned 15 stars. Great post.

I think that the declaration of the "war on some drugs" in the 1970s and the spread of AIDS in the 1980s were not coincidental. I remember as a kid going shopping with my mom and picking up boxes of disposable needles for my diabetic sister. Mom would pick up a huge box of them off the shelf and put it in a shopping cart, just like buying a box of breakfast cereal. Then one day we went shopping and the shelf that had the needles was empty. I don't know how Mom got the needles for my sister after that. That was a long time ago and for some reason that change stuck in my memory.

Another thing that stuck in my memory was one of these early anti-drug presentations that was given in school. To indicate how long ago this was the presentation was a slide show, on actual slides, with one of the teachers taking cues from an audio tape on when to advance the slide. The presentation made a big deal that street drugs were an unknown quantity and anything could be in them. This was different than the drugs made by the pharmaceutical industry, where they were made in very clean places by people that took great care in keeping them safe. Even as an ignorant little knucklehead in grade school I wondered why the drug dealers would be so careless with their customers, if they are dead then they can't come back for more. Also, if the drugs from the "professionals" were so clean then why don't the drug users just take those drugs?

Well, I got my answers. The drugs made by the professionals do in fact get in the hands of the drug addicts. And, the drug dealers would eventually learn that dead addicts don't come back and made sure their products were pure. The drugs on the street today are very pure, very cheap, and quite often easier to get than effective cold medicine.

Anti-drug messages in popular media, like Miami Vice, seemed to backfire to me. The drug kingpins were the "bad guys" but they drove fast cars and lived in big houses. People like fast cars and big houses, so the "bad guys" didn't seem so bad. Had they portrayed the dealers in a more realistic light, as pathetic people that are often barely literate, then that would just make the police look like idiots. I don't believe the police are idiots, they are simply given a task that is impossible to complete. It's the government officials that wrote these laws in the first place that are the idiots.

I had a discussion with someone where I said it was stupid to put people with an obvious substance abuse problem in prison. He replied that in prison these people get mental health counseling and help with their addiction. My question is, assuming that's true then why do we have to saddle these people with a felony on their criminal record when it was a mental health problem that drove them to take the drugs?

The only answer I could get is that the law was originally written only to punish the dealers. The problem became trying to separate the dealers from the users. So, the government (under "just say no" Reagan) decided that a single dose of a drug on a person was all the "evidence" the government needed to convict someone for dealing drugs. You'll notice this if you listen closely to the local news. No one is convicted for "drug possession", it's always "drug possession with an intent to deliver". The prosecutor won't have to "prove" they were a dealer, the presence of the drugs "proved" that.

Why are drugs illegal again? Because drug users commit crimes? Then catch them when they break a law, don't make up a new law. Because drug dealers are taking advantage of addicts? Then you should have stayed with putting the dealers in prison, punishing addicts for a mental health problem just looks bad. Then the government decided to punish people for having "drug paraphernalia". We've stepped so far from the original problem these legislators were trying to solve that the government is a greater threat than any drug dealer.

If we can't roll back the drug laws completely then it should at least be rolled back to where it all got started. That was so long ago now I'm not even sure what the original problem was supposed to be.

That was a longer post than I intended. If you read the whole thing then you've earned 15 internet gold stars.

 

[FingerDub]

I work for a police department in San Francisco, and I've never seen any other American city with so many needles. I seriously doubt that many of the cities' intravenous drug users would shoot up in such a place. This project is to help the political leadership feel better about themselves.

Even with data showing positive results from sites already open?

And, these programs are generally not green lighted without some sort of research performed first to determine what results might be achieved.

 

[Son of Wobble]

Then maybe Iowa should get these same kind of safe drug use sites.



At the same time a marijuana dealer is easily "persuaded" with cash. How's that line from Star Wars go? Something like the tighter you make your grip the more slip through your fingers. There is no law strong enough to overcome the profit from illegal drugs. The tougher the law the higher the profit. This war on some drugs has been waged in some form in the USA for 100 years. You'd think at some point someone in the government would point out the absurdity of it all.

This has got so insane now that the cocaine dealers are making million dollar stealth submarines to sneak past the Coast Guard. They don't show up on radar, sonar, metal detectors, or video, that is unless you are right on top of them. And that's a big ocean to hide in.

The war on some drugs was lost before it even started.

Regarding your reference to marijuana, I am a user for over 40 years, so I certainly understand the mind of the habitual drug user, and am empathetic, LOL. But opioids and pot cannot be conflated because pot, while habituating, is non-toxic. Opioids, being quite potentially lethal -- and also quite addicting -- are thus on the shortlist of substance the state MUST control to some extent for the greater good of the populace. But to provide your "contra" and spare you the typing, obviously the current "war" is not working. In fact, we've lost a couple rock stars lately to Fentanyl, and in Prince's case it was apparently in the counterfeit black market pills he was taking, and which were purposely mislabeled my the manufacturer.

Tom Petty was also killed by that compound, I think? But in his case he apparently knew full well what he was taking.

Fentanyl is 15x strength heroin, so easy to see how users miscalculate, particularly when bamboozled.

 

[Common Tater]

Fentanyl is 15x strength heroin, so easy to see how users miscalculate, particularly when bamboozled.

This sounds like a great argument to regulate, not ban, opiates. At a minimum the government can offer some kind of assistance in case a person is "bamboozled".

I'd think these safe drug use sites would be far cheaper than having the users be off somewhere unknown and then try to summon an ambulance if something goes wrong. Who's paying for that ride? You think the typical addict has a full coverage health plan? The people that go to these drug use sites likely don't have health plans either but there's not going to be so many ambulance calls.

As for your sob stories? I'm still biting my tongue on my own.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Opioids, being quite potentially lethal -- and also quite addicting -- are thus on the shortlist of substance the state MUST control to some extent for the greater good of the populace.

We used to close all the pubs at six o'clock, and all day Sunday. That's all gone to pot now

 

[MAJOR METAL]

Even with data showing positive results from sites already open?

And, these programs are generally not green lighted without some sort of research performed first to determine what results might be achieved.

We already have needle exchanges in San Francisco and drop boxes around the city, and the streets are still littered with them.

Safety advisory for anyone visiting San Francisco: Don't go into a park wearing sandals, it's not worth running the risk of getting stuck by a needle.

 

[ptg]

I work for a police department in San Francisco, and I've never seen any other American city with so many needles. I seriously doubt that many of the cities' intravenous drug users would shoot up in such a place. This project is to help the political leadership feel better about themselves.

First of all I am a little concerned when someone who works for the police department is a harvester of sorrow!

But, on topic, (and my opinion is just that and not factual in any way) I feel that the odds of a user on the street going straight by himself is 1 percent and you would have to think that if that same person can go to a center who, yes, is making it easier to continue the habit is also making it easier to quit by introducing them to programs and other social aids that would raise the likelihood of the person making a recovery.

That sentence was way too long and not well constructed!

 

[buldog5151bass]

I don't like facilitating illegal behavior. Never mind the potential liability the first time someone injects drugs there and something still happens, like an overdose. If you want to spend the money on treatment for addicts, I would prefer that.