What is your opinion on overdose prevention centers?

[BahamaBob]

How does it reduce crime? No one's supplying the drugs to them...if they need $$ to buy, they still may resort to crime.

And the dealers hang out right there, they've shown it on news shows and they've interviewed the dealers.

Good points. Simply makes it easier to obtain drugs and find clients. More examples of good intentions going bad.

 

[Lursa]

Some of these places do offer counseling and health care as described in the OP. Even for the ones that don't do treatment, they increase the number of people who go for drug treatment. They also have a very good effect on the communities they're in, lowering OD deaths, transmission rates of infectious disease, and don't increase crime. This is all according to the AMA.

All your link says is:

'Studies from other countries have shown that supervised injection facilities reduce the number of overdose deaths, reduce transmission rates of infectious disease, and increase the number of individuals initiating treatment for substance use disorders without increasing drug trafficking or crime in the areas where the facilities are located.'

link

It doesnt link to the studies either.

I dont question the first two but definitely do the bold. I've seen them interview drug dealers right outside the sites up in Vancouver, CA on the news.

 

[Lursa]

I would definitely be inclined to go with AMA recommendation.

See my post 52. Up to you, of course, but there's no details.

 

[Lursa]

It doesn't encourage drug use anymore than airbags encourage car crashes. It's about saving lives and preventing ODs. Studies have found that opening these centers causes more people to seek treatment.

Links?

 

[armycowboy]

Against.
These types of facilities give the impression that drug use is OK. In addition, they encourage people under the influence to drive. Come in, shoot up, get in your car and kill someone. That don't work for me. Anyone under the influence should not be encouraged to drive anywhere.

Just another example of good intentions that back fire.

If you want to stop people dying from overdoses, close the border. That is a solution that will work.

So, by this logic, we should close and bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, since people have drinks and then drive.

 

[Court Jester]

How can you say that children aren't a big part of the drug addiction problem when the majority of those who have a substance use disorder started using before age 18 and developed their disorder by age 20?

What you are describing is not a "me problem", it is a them problem.

Or did you not see that link in the post you quoted earlier?

It's a them problem.

 

[Court Jester]

I'm for treating overdoses as quickly as possible. Having naloxone even more readily available is a good thing, IMO.

....or... let kismet play out it's hand and that will eventually fix the problem.

Saving something just to have it repeat the same process--- eventually what is the point in that?

 

[Lycanthrope]

Rather see my taxes going for this than another round of corporate welfare.

 

[Helix]

....or... let kismet play out it's hand and that will eventually fix the problem.

Saving something just to have it repeat the same process--- eventually what is the point in that?

I don't care about the "sorry bout ya" extreme position. Maybe someone else does.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

I am absolutely in favor of drug overdose prevention centers.

 

[BahamaBob]

So, by this logic, we should close and bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, since people have drinks and then drive.

Those are legal activities. But do what you want.

 

[armycowboy]

Those are legal activities. But do what you want.

Drinking and driving is a legal activity?

 

[AJG]

What you are describing is not a "me problem", it is a them problem.



It's a them problem.

Ah yes, the truth comes out. "It's not my problem so I don't care". Perhaps you should lead with that next time instead of inventing other excuses for why you shouldn't. We all knew where this was headed.

 

[Ahlevah]

I'm against wasting tax dollars to help drug addicts who wish to kill themselves.

I don’t mind helping drugs addicts, but, rather than enabling self-destructive behavior, I would force them into rehab. Sooner or later many of them will end up in jail or prison anyway, so we might as well fix them now. They stay in treatment until they get off of drugs. These people fuel so much of the criminal activity that takes place not just in the U.S., but in others countries as well. We should put a stop it.

 

[Lursa]

I don’t mind helping drugs addicts, but, rather than enabling self-destructive behavior, I would force them into rehab. Sooner or later many of them will end up in jail or prison anyway, so we might as well fix them now. They stay in treatment until they get off of drugs. These people fuel so much of the criminal activity that takes place not just in the U.S., but in others countries as well. We should put a stop it.

According to a great deal of data and success/failure rates, forcing them into rehab has a poor success rate. In general, addicts have to decide for themselves when and if they are ready to get clean and that most frequently happens when they hit rock bottom.

Using 'force' is often a greater waste of time and $$.

 

[Court Jester]

I don’t mind helping drugs addicts, but, rather than enabling self-destructive behavior, I would force them into rehab.

If you know anything about addicts, you cannot force them to take any rehab seriously. Even the most earnest addict who seeks to change, will have at least a 50% failure rate beating their addiction.

Society ends up encouraging drug addict behavior by making things too easy on them. Here in Southern California where something like 80% of all the nations so called "homeless" reside. It is the lax policies and easy way out which only encouraged the behavior.... well, along with our mild climate. These so called "homeless" are mainly drug addicts, and our street are an "open drug scene" due to liberal policies.

Making things harder on them, I agree, does cure them. But it may discourage others BEFORE they become fully addicted.

Sooner or later many of them will end up in jail or prison anyway, so we might as well fix them now. They stay in treatment until they get off of drugs. These people fuel so much of the criminal activity that takes place not just in the U.S., but in others countries as well. We should put a stop it.

We cannot stop drug use/addiction. Our best course is to marginalize these people and FORCE them off our streets. If they want to fix their lives, the more power to them. But fixing them is nearly impossible.

 

[Unbeknownst]

Nobody gets put on anything which they could not have otherwise refused. It isn't as if it wasn't known that opioids were addictive. If a doctor told you to jump off a cliff would you do it?

How am I punishing somebody else for their decisions? If they want to pay for rehab then I'm fine with that. But asking tax payers to bail out people fo their poor life choices is not a policy I agree with. We have wounded veterans, and elderly people who did everything right and played by the rules who I would rather see my tax dollars go to helping. Loser dope heads deserve the outcomes they end up with. Maybe allowing them to fall further through the cracks makes for a good lesson for others to learn to avoid?

One of these veterans you supposedly care about so much was in the video. He appears at about 11:40. He says "I've gotten more help here than I've gotten from the VA." And the "here" he is referring to is an overdose prevention center.

And he is not alone. Studies show that substance abuse disorders (SUDs) are prevalent among veterans and military personnel, who are prescribed opioids to deal with PTSD, migraines, and chronic pain through the VA healthcare system. Here is an enlightening quote from the study I linked:

"Misuse of prescription drugs, such as opioids, is on the rise among veterans.16 Opioids, which are one of the most addicting prescription drugs available,25 are being prescribed at increasing rates to veterans to address issues such as migraine headaches and chronic pain.26 From 2001 to 2009, the percent of veterans in the VA health care system receiving an opioid prescription increased from 17% to 24%, and the number of prescriptions written for pain medication by military physicians has more than quadrupled.27,28 From 2003 to 2007, chronic opioid use (i.e., 6 months or longer) among young veterans in the VA health care system increased from 3.0% to 4.5%.29 [...] Mental health diagnoses increase the likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. Specifically, veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD (17.8%) or another mental health disorder (11.7%) were more likely to receive an opioid prescription than those without mental health diagnoses (6.5%).31 As compared to veterans without a mental health diagnosis, those with a diagnosis of PTSD receive higher doses of opioid medications, are more likely to receive a simultaneous prescription for additional opioids or for a sedative hypnotic, and are more likely to receive an early refill.31 Unfortunately, research suggests that those with mental health disorders are also more likely to develop opioid use disorders and to experience a number of adverse clinical outcomes (e.g., inpatient or emergency room admissions, opioid-related accidents and overdoses, and violence-related injuries).27,31:

But I suppose these veterans who fought for our country and have suffered health issues as a result are "loser dope heads" who should have known better than to take medication prescribed to them through the VA health care system to relieve some of their chronic pain. I suppose it's their fault that the PTSD they got fighting to protect the rest of us makes them more likely to develop opioid use disorders and OD.

**** them, right?? They don't deserve our help because Court Jester is against privately-funded Overdose Prevention Centers that wouldn't cost him a ****ing dime and would have all sorts of positive effects on the communities they're in.

 

[Unbeknownst]

Against

The point is to get people off drugs...not encourage it.

OPCs "increase the number of individuals initiating treatment for substance use disorders without increasing drug trafficking or crime in the areas where the facilities are located" (source) and reduce OD deaths (source). They also offer "general medical advice and referrals to drug treatment, medical treatment, and other social support programs" and "participants can also receive health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment" (source).

 

[Unbeknownst]

Against.
These types of facilities give the impression that drug use is OK. In addition, they encourage people under the influence to drive. Come in, shoot up, get in your car and kill someone. That don't work for me. Anyone under the influence should not be encouraged to drive anywhere.

Just another example of good intentions that back fire.

If you want to stop people dying from overdoses, close the border. That is a solution that will work.

Nope. You come in, shoot up, and stay there while the staff monitor you for overdose. You are offered treatment and other resources to help get you off drugs. You are given life-saving medical care in the case of an OD.

 

[Unbeknownst]

All your link says is:

'Studies from other countries have shown that supervised injection facilities reduce the number of overdose deaths, reduce transmission rates of infectious disease, and increase the number of individuals initiating treatment for substance use disorders without increasing drug trafficking or crime in the areas where the facilities are located.'

link

It doesnt link to the studies either.

I dont question the first two but definitely do the bold. I've seen them interview drug dealers right outside the sites up in Vancouver, CA on the news.

You do not know how much I wish the AMA would've just cited studies and make things easy for me, haha. For the record, I took the AMA as a reliable source in and of itself, but here's studies I found that supports the bolded statement:

"No increases were seen with respect to drug trafficking (124 vs. 116) or assaults/robbery (174 vs. 180), although a decline in vehicle break-ins/vehicle theft was observed (302 vs. 227). The SIF was not associated with increased drug trafficking or crimes commonly linked to drug use." (Source)

"The opening of the safer injecting facility was independently associated with improvements in several measures of public order, including reduced public injection drug use and public syringe disposal." (Source)

"There was no evidence that the MSIC trial led to either an increase or decrease in theft or robbery incidents. There was also no evidence that the MSIC led to an increase in 'drug-related' loitering at the front of the MSIC after it opened, although there was a small increase in 'total' loitering (by 1.2 persons per occasion of observation). [...] Key informant interviews noted an increase in loitering across the road from the MSIC but this was not attributed to an influx of new users and dealers to the area. There was no increase in the proportion of drug use or drug supply offences committed in Kings Cross that could be attributed to the opening of the MSIC." (Source)

"All measures of public disorder showed decreases in the wake of the facility's opening" (Source)

And for an overview of OPCs that cites sources for the claims it makes: https://www.cfp.ca/content/63/11/866.short

Links?

After rabbit-holing through sources, the original study is paywalled. Anyway, this is the study that has been cited repeatedly as proof that OPCs increase the amount of people who seek treatment. If you want to contact the authors to request a PDF you are free to do so but I am absolutely done.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Against

The point is to get people off drugs...not encourage it.

Ah yeah, the dumb conservative "tell them no and it will stop them" which does nothing. And it is not encouraging them. Conservatives truly lack intelligence and definitely have zero empathy to even comprehend problems outside their tiny little worldview.

of course, all you can muster is a one liner of idiocy with no actual facts, logic or reasoning. Why do you people even bother posting if you are so lazy and have no arguments at all?

 

[Unbeknownst]

Links?

Aaaaand I found it. Thank God for re-uploads. Unfortunately, it seems to be a collection of screenshots so I cannot copy and paste a section of the text for you, but here is the link to explore it yourself: http://www.communityinsite.ca/pdf/attendance-and-detoxification.pdf

 

[Ahlevah]

According to a great deal of data and success/failure rates, forcing them into rehab has a poor success rate. In general, addicts have to decide for themselves when and if they are ready to get clean and that most frequently happens when they hit rock bottom.

Using 'force' is often a greater waste of time and $$.

I think we could oblige them in helping them reach rock bottom faster by putting them in the penal system and reemphasizing that the use and possession of drugs is a crime. No more outpatient diversion programs. Many users are dealers who peddle drugs to fund their own habits. Stop coddling them, enabling them, and treating them as victims or people with an illness who deserve our sympathy. Take away their kids until they clean up, and make the use of drugs a criterion for termination of parental rights. That should help move them closer to the basement. Telling them they can remain in rehab forever, deprived of their freedom, should also motivate them. But the choice will be theirs.

I would work to stigmatize the use of drugs by educating the users and the public at large that they’re responsible for much if not most of the criminal activity and homelessness in this country, not to mention they’re killing themselves at unprecedented rates.

When I say “ penal,” yes, one of the objects would be punishment, but the main objects would be treatment and reintegration into society in facilities designed for that purpose. They would thus be segregated from violent offenders. Right now my son’s ex and the mother of our only grandchild is being held in a county jail, commingled with violent state prisoners because our prisons are packed with more violent criminals largely being held thanks to crimes, like murder, involving the drug trade. This was her third arrest involving possession of meth, but until now I don’t think she spent more than a night in jail because she always bonded out. Now she’s unbondable and being held on an alias capias warrant until trial, and god only knows when that will be because the courts are backed up due to Covid. So, in the meantime, she rots in jail. Hopefully, this is her bottom, but I’m not holding my breath because our “solution” is to wait until she tells herself she’s at bottom. She’ll probably be dead before that happens. THAT will be her bottom.

The model for what I’m talking about is Singapore, which doesn’t have much of a drug problem. The other part of their plan involves executing drug dealers. I’m all for that, too.

Three Things You Should Know About the Enhanced Drug Rehabilitation Regime

The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament this week. Here are three things you should know about the enhanced drug rehabilitation regime.

www.mha.gov.sg

 

[Ahlevah]

If you know anything about addicts, you cannot force them to take any rehab seriously. Even the most earnest addict who seeks to change, will have at least a 50% failure rate beating their addiction.

I just posted a more in-depth discussion of my feelings on the topic in a reply above to Lursa. They would get more serious with more serious consequences for not cleaning up their act.

 

[Unbeknownst]

I think we could oblige them in helping them reach rock bottom faster by putting them in the penal system and reemphasizing that the use and possession of drugs is a crime. No more outpatient diversion programs. Many users are dealers who peddle drugs to fund their own habits. Stop coddling them, enabling them, and treating them as victims or people with an illness who deserve our sympathy. Take away their kids until they clean up, and make the use of drugs a criterion for termination of parental rights. That should help move them closer to the basement. Telling them they can remain in rehab forever, deprived of their freedom, should also motivate them. But the choice will be theirs.

I would work to stigmatize the use of drugs by educating the users and the public at large that they’re responsible for much if not most of the criminal activity and homelessness in this country, not to mention they’re killing themselves at unprecedented rates.

When I say “ penal,” yes, one of the objects would be punishment, but the main objects would be treatment and reintegration into society in facilities designed for that purpose. They would thus be segregated from violent offenders. Right now my son’s ex and the mother of our only grandchild is being held in a county jail, commingled with violent state prisoners because our prisons are packed with more violent criminals largely being held thanks to crimes, like murder, involving the drug trade. This was her third arrest involving possession of meth, but until now I don’t think she spent more than a night in jail because she always bonded out. Now she’s unbondable and being held on an alias capias warrant until trial, and god only knows when that will be because the courts are backed up due to Covid. So, in the meantime, she rots in jail. Hopefully, this is her bottom, but I’m not holding my breath because our “solution” is to wait until she tells herself she’s at bottom. She’ll probably be dead before that happens. THAT will be her bottom.

The model for what I’m talking about is Singapore, which doesn’t have much of a drug problem. The other part of their plan involves executing drug dealers. I’m all for that, too.

Three Things You Should Know About the Enhanced Drug Rehabilitation Regime

The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament this week. Here are three things you should know about the enhanced drug rehabilitation regime.

www.mha.gov.sg

Because the forced approach has worked so well...

"Approximately 80% of all detainees with HIV were surveyed in each detention center. Most participants reported multiple untreated medical conditions. None reported being able to access antiretroviral therapy during detention and only 9% reported receiving any HIV-related clinical assessment or care. Nearly a quarter screened positive for symptoms indicative of active tuberculosis, yet none reported having been evaluated for tuberculosis. Although 95% of participants met criteria for opioid dependence prior to detention, none reported being able to access opioid substitution therapy during detention, with 86% reporting current cravings for opioids and 87% anticipating relapsing to drug use after release. Fourteen percent of participants reported suicidal ideation over the previous two weeks." (Source)