Government gives heroin to junkies

Remove all ads!

The danish oposition, wants to give heroin to the hardcore junkies.

law proposals have already been made by the opposition, while some parties say to watch for results in other countries first, the opposition wants to ordinate heroin right now. "why wait?"

i am sorry for not having any sources to this other than Danish tv and articles, so thawt is why i have posted none.


i am strongly against this proposal, though i do see some good sides.

the black market for these things will not seize to exist, but it will be deminished i think.

you can somewhat controll the amounst of drugs being used.

i am aware now that several other countries have prescriped heroin, wich will be the same in Denmark.

but i am strongly against this, mainly because i think it is wrong for a government or doctors for that matter to prescripe unnescesary drugs or the likes to anyone.

how do you feel about this?

 

It is controversial for sure but if there are solid research pointing towards doing something like this would for example lower crime I would be for it. These junkies wont quit, they are dead (wo)men walking already and instead of breaking into your car or steal computers from a school to get their fix they get it suscribed I reckon it might work.

What smoe people tote as a positive effect of this is that the addicts wouldnt run as high a risk for od and dirty drugs I see as a downside. It may sound rough and insensitive but without so many addicts dying young we would have quite a few more of them and they are a horrible drain on society as a whole and their friend and family.

I do think that with a system were the junkies get prescribed drugs it would give the authorities a better overview and instead of having the worst casing running around causing troubles you can have them nice and quietely stoned on the governments treat. Would be a bitch to set the criteria to decide who to get it and who doesnt.

 

On an upside I'd bet it lowers the risk of OD significally as well, in the end saving lives.
I deffo think this might be worth a try, though I must agree that it would be comforting to see some results beforehand, seeing as other countries are already running this on a test-basis.

 

Joa is right pointing out the crime prevention aspect. By giving these folks heroin, or methadon as a substitute to help them get clean, it prevents them from committing crimes to fund their addiction, and as such, protects the citizenry more effective than a purely repressive approach. Better to feed an addict as having him whack a granny in a frenzy to gather the money to get his fix. I'd really rather have them happy and stoned on the government treat.

Putting junkies in jail for possession of illicit drugs won't make them clean. It helps no one. It merely relocates the problem to jail, and fuels the jails inevitable black market. You don't solve a crime problem by kicking around a few addict bums, who can't help themselves because they no longer have a choice in their actions. And with having no choice, culpability will become an issue in court.

Drugs are expensive. At a certain stage, it is near impossible to keep working as an addict which usually results in job loss. The only means to get the funds neccessary for the addiction is prostitution or crime. Taking hardcore addicts out of the drug-related crime cycle not only protects the citizenry, but also disburdens the police and allows them to go for the bigger fish. Nothing wrong about reducing prostitution either.

And there also is the desease prevention argument that goes with providing them with free sterile needles in what's called in Germany 'fixer rooms'. That also eliminates the needle problem, for instance in public parks. AIDS and hepatitis are bad enough already, and prevalent in this group. And then, of course, there is the prostitution aspect of desease prevention. More than reason enough to contain it. You can't do that when you drive them underground by prosecuting them.

The approach to give heroin to hardcore addicts simply recognises the drug problem as a reality that has to be dealt with. Is it a perfect approach? No. But is a pragmatic approach to a problem that promises many more benefits than the alternatives.

Of course, giving heroin to junkies makes little sense without exit programs and prevention efforts, as well as rigorous prosecution of drug dealers and drug traders.

We have such programs in Germany. The results have generally been positive.

 

What would stop the people who are not heroin addicts from giving it a try now that the government is handing it out?

I think it's morally wrong for a democratic government to supply the people with drugs. Why don't they crack down *really* hard on the sellers in stead? And/or the users. Teach them a lesson they won't forget and *make* them stop.

 

Don't be silly. The recipients in Germany are people who have a record of long heroin addiction. 'Record' as in, medical record, arrest record, rehab record. Had you ever seen these guys, you wouldn't think it an invitation, or pro-heroin PR. They're zombies.

They authorities are certainly not handing heroin out like candy. The heavy addicts are approached by the government, because and only because they are the hard cases. As there are conditions to be met, there are rules to be adhered, which when violated lead to exclusion. Quite clearly, people can't just go there and ask for heroin. It's not a 'get high and have fun' merry-go-round. The people thinking up such programs are not well-meaning idiots. These programs are there for reasons of utility.

As I said, these programs can't and don't stand alone. They need accompanying prevention and exit-programs.

[ February 26, 2007, 19:55: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

to comment on what ragusa says, there definately has to be rehab programs, i think for a junkie hooked "lightly" on heroin it should be easier to just quit than to go the good ol' "merry go round"

but i also think this.

when do you stop? i mean if we start giving out heroin, why not cocain? crack? crystal meth?
why not support "hardcore" alcoholics with free beer?

 

As I said, it's for long-time addicts, the hard cases.

Heroin related crime has a different intensity than the addictions you mentioned. Ever been to Hamburg Hauptbahnhof, or Frankfurt's Bahnhofsviertel? No pretty sight. Especially not at night. In Germany heroin is still the most pressing drug problem. Thus, we only have such programs for heroin.

However, it is an interesting question if the model is transferable on other drugs because of the clientele and addiction characteristics. Maybe, if the problem in a community is very pressing and the corresponding problems grave.

As for alcohole, sounds cynical, but beer is so cheap here that the average bum can pretty much self finance his addiction with collecting the deposit on derelict bottles. No crime problem. When getting out of hand that can be rather effective be dealt with by banning them from public places or, heaven forbid, a 'no public drinking' policy like in Munich. But then, having to sit in a Biergarten isn't all that bad, just more expensive. Good for the economy, bad for my wallet.

I frankly admit the approach is not 'perfect'. As a result of a cost-benefit calculation it's a practical solution to a practical problem, clearly not according to the pure doctrine. It's about being cold-eyed and pragmatic.

 

Unless you're proposing to kill anyone who tests positive for heroin use, and to institute mandatory testing, going so far as to grab likely-looking folk off the street for testing, this won't do much.

Unless you can point to a time when prohibition has actually worked?

The 'war on drugs' style approach is a failure, and has always been a failure. New approaches are needed; maybe this one will work, maybe it won't. But it beats more of the same, when more of the same means doing the same thing over and over again in the hopes of a different outcome.

 

I don't like this idea at all. First off, where does the government get the heroin? Does it grow its own? Because as far as I know getting heroin legally is quite a problem and I certainly don't approve of the government funding drug production this way.

Secondly, I'm not willing to pay taxes to fund someone's very expensive drug addiction. They won't be satisfied with a small amount and will come after more as long as they live. I'd imagine that this would cost quite a lot in the long run. Of course dealing them an overdose is of course a way to handle the situation too I guess. If these people are considered dangerous then they should be put into forced rehabilitation and/or prison. Dealing out free drugs is not the way to go. Also I'd like to know what's cost of keeping an addict in rehabilitation/prison compared to an average heroinists daily dosage?

 

I'm less than thrilled with the idea. While I could support a program supplying them with softer drugs so that they can eventually get down from heroin to something weaker (ideally not at all) such as buphrenorphine, heroin itself is quite powerful. Also, I'm not sure if the program can't be abused by non-addicts and lead to addiction.

Other than that, there will be some benefits in terms of reduced impurities and it might decrease the criminal profits (of course, it depends on who supplies it to the state - it might be that they've planned for this and will use the heroin confiscated by the police), but it's more than a bit morally objectionable.

 

Morogoth,
the heroin is bought from the same pharmaceutical companies who also provide medical morphine. There is legal poppy cultivation in Europe, under tight oversight.

Giving an addict heroin is cheaper than the damage to society caused by his addiction if left untreated, in terms of people and property damaged by drug-related crime and the like. I've seen such a calculation been made and found them convincing.

Also, they're given this stuff under medical supervision. They don't get to decide how much they get. A doctor participating in such program meant that they are patients with a number of very grave medical problems. It's not about rewarding addicts but about treating sick people effectively. I will again address that point below.

Shaman,
you made a good point I forgot: Of course the hard addicts will not spend any money on the black market to get heroin. The dealers will be denied profit.

Giving them something weaker won't satisfy the addiction and iirc experience has shown that they then tend to 'back up' the substitute with whatever they find, painkillers, etc. to achieve that high.

The participants are people who are known to be addicted for a long, long time, people who're in the files. We're not talking about many people.
Only. Such. People. Are. Allowed. In.

The only known abuse was that years back, addicts were given methadone to treat themselves. That was of course a folly, as they sold it, to get 'the real thing', heroin. Ever since that came out the drugs are administered by a doctor. The addicts are tested regularly for other substances, and aren't trusted much. For good reason.

Everybody listen up - I want to make the following point crystal clear so I don't have to repeat it with very post:

The idea is to stabilise the addiction to allow to effectively treat the other ailments the addicts tend to have as a result of their life on the street, and their psychological disorders. Only with that solved, one can go into direction of withdrawal. They won't receive heroin until they get old and die. It is a first step on a long way.

[ February 27, 2007, 18:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That's because heroin basically is morphine. Once injected into the blood each molecule of heroin breaks down into two molecules of morphine - it's essentially a morphine dimer.

 

It's still a worry that the government would use taxpayer money to give drugs to junkies. I dislike the whole 'the guilty party is a victim' mentality the world is shifting to. Fully grown adults apparently are not responsiable for their actions, rather Nanny State is. (edited spelling)

[ February 27, 2007, 22:52: Message edited by: Abomination ]

 

This won't erase the damages entirely though. These people will demand more and more heroin. Is this system capable of providing them that 24/7? Also heroinists are unstable, they might well attack people without any provocation in any case. In my opinion if you are able to find these people in order to provide them with heroin you are also able to lock them away from being dangerous. In my opinion the locking away option seems to be more reliable and better.

I'm not convinced that this would benefit anyone. And I wonder how this would prevent criminals from selling the stuff to children, unless of course you want the "excellent medical industry" to do that for them, which I would find absolutely horrible.

I also believe that it would have the opposite effect of what you describe. I believe it would become more common, especially among depressed people the temptation of them relying on drugs might become to great to resist and we have quite a few depressed people here in the cold north.

 

Morg,

You're well advised to read my and 'everybody listen up' segments above, and critically review your statement.

Monty,
the market settles everything. You really believe that, do you?

 

@ Monty: decriminalization may bring much larger addiction rates. It's bad enough with tobacco, and possibly marijuana... but mass heroin addictions? It's like that old dark joke: one moment of carelessness - an entire lifetime of being dead. Only in this case, it's addicted - in some ways, even harder on society and the people around you.

 

Monty,
economic determinism is a folly. Man is more complex that that.

After the second opium war China was no longer able to oppose the influx of opium into China, a de-facto legalisation -- with devastating effect: It led to rampant abuse throughout China, especially in the coastal areas. It is estimated that about 30 percent of the Chinese population drifted into an opium habit, of which 10 percent turned into chronic addicts. And that's just opium, not heroin.

You free market proposal in this context is utterly insane.