Let drug addicts die in the street. Cheaper and more effective than anything this foreign piece of shit liberal thinks or says. Let em die and publish it.
I don't think harm reduction is bad. I think it is good. I just think that that video, like those from Partnership for a Drug Free America, is worthless.
Harm reduction means that you are enforcing the law with the sense that some laws are more important than others, and so it doesn't need to be zero toleraance.
This video has nothing to do with that. It is just a dorky video.
Harm reduction doesn't work at all. The money invested in treatment is wasted and you stated the reason: "when they are ready to quit". That time is never. Trauma lol. Wah. Always an excuse.
Harm reduction keeps them as safe as 0ossiblr til they're ready to quit. It also makes addiction a social and health problem rather than a criminal one.
Addiction is being a scumbag problem. It's not a health problem or a societal problem. The drug addict doesn't give a shit about their safety, their lives, their future, or anyone else on earth. They created the problem, and they own it, not society. Wasting money on someone who doesn;t care about their safety is pathetically stupid and a total waste.
Addiction is for losers and that includes my nephew who is in rehab stint 6. If his parents not let him back in after his first two fuck ups he might have had a chance. Any society that caters to the losers must fail. You're all words and no actions. Just the typical left wing all hat, no cattle fuckwad.
Denmark had incredibly draconian and punitive laws surrounding illicit drug possession and use. Despite making their laws more and more aggressively punishing, illicit drug use and all of the connected crimes kept increasing. They changed tactics in 2012 and started treating the issue more like a health crisis and less like a criminal problem.
Harm reduction in Denmark has been successful at shrinking the illegal market for drugs as well as reducing the related crimes associated with that market. They have also seen a reduction in drug users as their facilities also offer the option of drug addiction counseling and programs. It turns out that drug addiction programs have a higher success rate when opted into by the user of their own free will and not mandated by a judge. Additionally, harm reduction policies help to reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and HCV. Harm reduction is an active policy in 10 countries and 66 cities around the world.
So, I'm in favor of trying harm reduction. If for no other reason than previous, traditional measures have had the cumulative impact of a fart in a windstorm.
Yea h the last drug addict b.s. was Holland and legalizing drugs. That didn't work either and the idea a small European country is a parallel to our country makes no sense. I would also point out that studies based on "self-reporting" are of no value, so scratch number one. I don't see any mention of costs. I am not persuaded by any of the links and 10 countries out of 195 doing something isn't very convincing. Denmark isn't diverse; has no worldwide obligations and forces immigrants to become Danish, not foreigners living there like we do with ours.
I think most harm reduction programs are a waste of tax payer funds. Having said that, States that outlaw fentanyl test strips as drug paraphernalia are contributing to needless deaths. Just look at those West Point Cadets.
Harm reduction means that you are going to recognize that not all laws are of equal importance, and so you don't always have to enforce every law.
As things are going, much of the electorate wants marijuana legalized. I do not want that, but if others want that I won't complain. Of other drugs we will see.
Gabor Mate runs in Vancouver the only legal injection clinic in North America.
I would like it if no one used any mood alternants. And often the gateway to day is the doctor's prescription pad.
Prohibition did not work very well.
I think once people learn that it is best to feel their feelings and avoid escapism, then they will throw all mood alternants away.
I'm not convinced that anything we've tried so far has been remotely effective (and research bears that out clearly), which is why I advocate for trying something new that does have strong reporting that it has been effective. Other countries have tested harm reduction via pilot programs in small regions or cities. We could do the same thing.
If you're going to insist that every proposed solution be successful in a country that in equivalent to the U.S., then it becomes impossible to test any proposed solution ever ... at all. Because there's no country on the planet that is analogous to the U.S. in terms of size, population, economics, etc. But we can look to other smaller countries as incubators/test environments for non-standard solutions and then try them here.
It's interesting how innovative thinking is only lauded after it has been successful and it's safe to do so.
Best harm reducing technique is the quasi legalization in a specific area that’s fenced off from the rest of us, if anyone remembers the show The Wire, that police captain had the right idea, don’t squander resources for a group of people that don’t want to be healthy and let them die off, eventually people will get the message and the best way to not be harmed by drugs is not to use them.
The problem with the current system of criminalizing addiction is that there's no incentive to get help. Rehab doesn't help because it doesn't offer viable means for people to leave their environment once they're out. Rehab in the penal system is usually run by religious groups much like sex ed programs are.
Harm reduction impacts and changes the environment in which the addict functions. Things like being able to test drugs impacts drug sales. A safe place impacts the 0resence of trap houses. It changes things from the bottom up. Community development is more effective and cheaper than a militarized police presence.
It functions within the law. Hence why it's legal. We have to move away from viewing social ills as criminal and address underlying social and economic and health factors that lead to them. Invest more in public health and mental health. Community development. Create viable jobs. Etc
If it was society's fault, everyone living in these communities would be drug addicts and not just the useless, weak losers. Blaming everyone except for yourself is the mantra of the left. When that addict breaks into your house, attacks you and steals from you, they forfeit their humanity. Treatment works 20% of the time if the addict is 100% invested in treatment, which is why it seldom works at all. Waste of money. People like you coddling addicts make you their worst enemy Icey. Typical leftist trying to gain power by using the week as a shield. Human shields are a very muslim thing: you a muslim Icey?
Prop 36. Prop 36 was passed by California voters in November 2000. Prop 36 mandates probation and drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for specific non-violent (felony or misdemeanor) drug offenses. Drug offenders granted Prop 36 probation are screened and referred to appropriate treatment programs.
Harm Reduction is a legal concept. It means that you accept that some laws are more important than others, and so not every law has to be enforced to the letter in every situation. So you consider options in stead of jail for drug offenses. In 2000 CA voters approved a version of this.
Court ordered treatment via prop 360 isn't that great. The health education funds doing the rehabs are mostly religious groups using drug or sex education programs as a way to proselytize jn prisons and jails. At most they detox and then get sent back into the same environment. Halfway houses don't really work well either.
Harm reduction addresses needs that lead to preventing arrests in the first place. And works with the addicts. It's a community development approach.
Prop 36 is as far as the electorate wanted to go at that point.
Getting exposed to the salvation groups and giving them public money of course is not good. Preventing arrests would mean decriminalization of at least some drug use.
Most of the time when things are done by state legislatures there is more give and take, and there are more experts involved.
When done at the ballot box, there is less compromise and the results are more extreme, like legalizing marijuana.
I think Chesa Boudin in San Francisco does not want to prosecute most misdemeanors, and that does mean Prostitution. It probably also involves the Drug Laws. And the guy in NYC probably is about the same.
Icey I think you are mistaken about someone being dougster.
I think if you look at what Chesa Bouding is doing in San Francisco and what they guy in New York is doing, you'll find an example of how things go when drugs laws are not enforced.
Boudin thinks that ignoring crime will force the city to address the root causes of crime. And that's not going to happen. California govs are basically owned by real estate developers and their interests and they view crime as detrimental to property values and don't view community development as profitable. So California cities keep struggling with social problems that lead to criminal problems.
Personally I think Boudin is more motivated by careerism than social justice. The system is clogged and backlogged. And very expensive to run. Ignoring crimes he defines as non violent lifts a lot of stress on the judicial system. He hides behind social justice knowing full well there is no public health or social infrastructure to help those people.
Our legal marijuana dispensaries cross some new lines during the COVID crisis. Not much else was keeping our arts and entertainment newspaper going, so these dispensaries started doing quite sexualized advertisements, emphasizing what is already obvious that marijuana is tobacco 2.0.
Progressive love for failed nothing losers is hysterical. The hard working christian Dad is demonized. The useless felonious scumbag drug addict deserves compassion.
When I was in elementary school the spent a lot of time trying to educate us about the dangers in drugs. And I think what they said was right. They showed us movies, and they had former addicts talk to us. This included a young woman who said that she had a very expensive heroin habit and did prostitution to support it. We had to get some adult explanation to know what that meant.
Now they told us that marijuana was a gateway drug.
Mostly I would say that this is true. But I would say that it is alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and the mood alterants that people get through the doctor's prescription pad that are the gateway.
And it is a gateway idea, that one should use chemical mood alterants, that makes one susceptible.
I think in the anti-drug education they made it look like we were all susceptible. This isn't really true though if you just remember that people are fucking morons and so you should not listen to them, and if you reject up front the idea of needing chemical mood alterants.
Comments
last commentLet drug addicts die in the street. Cheaper and more effective than anything this foreign piece of shit liberal thinks or says. Let em die and publish it.
Log in to vote
Iceefag is proof that even though there’s a pill out there for every ailment known to man. THERE AIN’T NO FIX FOR STUPID
Log in to vote
If you don't believe in harm reduction. Which works. Then what's the solution?
Log in to vote
The above video is useless, like the Partnership for Drug Free America stuff.
SJG
Log in to vote
Then what's the solution to the drug epidemic?
Log in to vote
Let them die is the final solution. Harm reduction lol; sounds like pretending there are trans women.
Log in to vote
Good Question.
I think part of it is just to promote wholeness and feeling your feelings.
Often the gateway drugs are coming through the doctor's prescription pad.
Of course there will be no drugs in My Organization.
SJG
Log in to vote
Why do you think harm reduction is so bad when it's proven to work?
Log in to vote
I don't think harm reduction is bad. I think it is good. I just think that that video, like those from Partnership for a Drug Free America, is worthless.
SJG
Log in to vote
Its about the content and for most people it's a first intro to harm reduction.
I think reducing harm until someone is perhaps ready to quit is important. Treating addicts like humans. Figuring out the trauma behind the addiction
Log in to vote
Harm reduction means that you are enforcing the law with the sense that some laws are more important than others, and so it doesn't need to be zero toleraance.
This video has nothing to do with that. It is just a dorky video.
SJG
Log in to vote
Harm reduction doesn't work at all. The money invested in treatment is wasted and you stated the reason: "when they are ready to quit". That time is never. Trauma lol. Wah. Always an excuse.
Log in to vote
Harm reduction keeps them as safe as 0ossiblr til they're ready to quit. It also makes addiction a social and health problem rather than a criminal one.
Log in to vote
Addiction is being a scumbag problem. It's not a health problem or a societal problem. The drug addict doesn't give a shit about their safety, their lives, their future, or anyone else on earth. They created the problem, and they own it, not society. Wasting money on someone who doesn;t care about their safety is pathetically stupid and a total waste.
Log in to vote
I think you're just trolling Republicans by acting like the worst possible stereotype.
Addiction is a mental illness and needs to be treated as such.
Log in to vote
Addiction is for losers and that includes my nephew who is in rehab stint 6. If his parents not let him back in after his first two fuck ups he might have had a chance. Any society that caters to the losers must fail. You're all words and no actions. Just the typical left wing all hat, no cattle fuckwad.
Log in to vote
Denmark had incredibly draconian and punitive laws surrounding illicit drug possession and use. Despite making their laws more and more aggressively punishing, illicit drug use and all of the connected crimes kept increasing. They changed tactics in 2012 and started treating the issue more like a health crisis and less like a criminal problem.
Harm reduction in Denmark has been successful at shrinking the illegal market for drugs as well as reducing the related crimes associated with that market. They have also seen a reduction in drug users as their facilities also offer the option of drug addiction counseling and programs. It turns out that drug addiction programs have a higher success rate when opted into by the user of their own free will and not mandated by a judge. Additionally, harm reduction policies help to reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and HCV. Harm reduction is an active policy in 10 countries and 66 cities around the world.
So, I'm in favor of trying harm reduction. If for no other reason than previous, traditional measures have had the cumulative impact of a fart in a windstorm.
link.springer.com
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Log in to vote
Yea h the last drug addict b.s. was Holland and legalizing drugs. That didn't work either and the idea a small European country is a parallel to our country makes no sense. I would also point out that studies based on "self-reporting" are of no value, so scratch number one. I don't see any mention of costs. I am not persuaded by any of the links and 10 countries out of 195 doing something isn't very convincing. Denmark isn't diverse; has no worldwide obligations and forces immigrants to become Danish, not foreigners living there like we do with ours.
Log in to vote
Prohibition did not work very well. Netherlands has taken a softer approach.
www.imdb.com
SJG
Joe Bonamassa
www.youtube.com
Log in to vote
I think most harm reduction programs are a waste of tax payer funds. Having said that, States that outlaw fentanyl test strips as drug paraphernalia are contributing to needless deaths. Just look at those West Point Cadets.
Log in to vote
Harm reduction means that you are going to recognize that not all laws are of equal importance, and so you don't always have to enforce every law.
As things are going, much of the electorate wants marijuana legalized. I do not want that, but if others want that I won't complain. Of other drugs we will see.
Gabor Mate runs in Vancouver the only legal injection clinic in North America.
I would like it if no one used any mood alternants. And often the gateway to day is the doctor's prescription pad.
Prohibition did not work very well.
I think once people learn that it is best to feel their feelings and avoid escapism, then they will throw all mood alternants away.
SJG
Log in to vote
I'm not convinced that anything we've tried so far has been remotely effective (and research bears that out clearly), which is why I advocate for trying something new that does have strong reporting that it has been effective. Other countries have tested harm reduction via pilot programs in small regions or cities. We could do the same thing.
If you're going to insist that every proposed solution be successful in a country that in equivalent to the U.S., then it becomes impossible to test any proposed solution ever ... at all. Because there's no country on the planet that is analogous to the U.S. in terms of size, population, economics, etc. But we can look to other smaller countries as incubators/test environments for non-standard solutions and then try them here.
It's interesting how innovative thinking is only lauded after it has been successful and it's safe to do so.
Log in to vote
Best harm reducing technique is the quasi legalization in a specific area that’s fenced off from the rest of us, if anyone remembers the show The Wire, that police captain had the right idea, don’t squander resources for a group of people that don’t want to be healthy and let them die off, eventually people will get the message and the best way to not be harmed by drugs is not to use them.
Log in to vote
www.amazon.com
If people learn to accept that they must feel their feelings and never run from them, they will stop using all chemical mood alteratns.
SJG
Log in to vote
The problem with the current system of criminalizing addiction is that there's no incentive to get help. Rehab doesn't help because it doesn't offer viable means for people to leave their environment once they're out. Rehab in the penal system is usually run by religious groups much like sex ed programs are.
Harm reduction impacts and changes the environment in which the addict functions. Things like being able to test drugs impacts drug sales. A safe place impacts the 0resence of trap houses. It changes things from the bottom up. Community development is more effective and cheaper than a militarized police presence.
Log in to vote
"Harm Reduction" just means not enforcing the drug laws.
If you mean some kind of anti-drug teaching or rehab programs, that is something else.
SJG
X
www.youtube.com
Log in to vote
That's not what it is. It's tackling addiction as a social and health problem rather than a criminal one
Log in to vote
" rather than a criminal one"
And that is what makes it controversial because you are either just giving up on the law or changing it.
No one objects to an anti-drug teaching, its just that much of it is of no effect.
SJG
Log in to vote
It's controversial because it humanized addicts.
Log in to vote
Controversial because it means not enforcing the laws against drugs. You either ignore them or change them.
Nothing controversial about anti-drug messages. About rehab clinics and programs, these would only be controversial if you are evading the law.
The musician Eric Clapton runs one in the Caribbean.
SJG
Log in to vote
It functions within the law. Hence why it's legal. We have to move away from viewing social ills as criminal and address underlying social and economic and health factors that lead to them. Invest more in public health and mental health. Community development. Create viable jobs. Etc
Log in to vote
If it was society's fault, everyone living in these communities would be drug addicts and not just the useless, weak losers. Blaming everyone except for yourself is the mantra of the left. When that addict breaks into your house, attacks you and steals from you, they forfeit their humanity. Treatment works 20% of the time if the addict is 100% invested in treatment, which is why it seldom works at all. Waste of money. People like you coddling addicts make you their worst enemy Icey. Typical leftist trying to gain power by using the week as a shield. Human shields are a very muslim thing: you a muslim Icey?
Log in to vote
Judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable.
Log in to vote
Yes, and progressives abort children who could survive outside the womb. Sick, disgusting, vile scum.
Log in to vote
Skibum, you demonstrate why the poor and ethnic minorities need to adopt the tactics of the Irish Republican Army, and start making some corpses.
Icey, in CA we already have a kind of harm reduction approach in drug cases, Prop 36
www.wklaw.com
Prop 36. Prop 36 was passed by California voters in November 2000. Prop 36 mandates probation and drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for specific non-violent (felony or misdemeanor) drug offenses. Drug offenders granted Prop 36 probation are screened and referred to appropriate treatment programs.
www.shouselaw.com
www.losangeles-criminalattorneys.com
I've been in hearings where the Judge explains that he always gives people an option of these non-jail programs.
SJG
Eric Clapton - Knock on Wood
www.youtube.com
John Fogerty
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
Log in to vote
Tell me something SJG & Iceefag, aren't people victimized by drug addicts entitled to some harm reduction as well ?
Log in to vote
Harm Reduction is a legal concept. It means that you accept that some laws are more important than others, and so not every law has to be enforced to the letter in every situation. So you consider options in stead of jail for drug offenses. In 2000 CA voters approved a version of this.
SJG
Log in to vote
So you believe it's perfectly ok to cause harm to others as long as you hide behind the shield of drug addiction.
Log in to vote
The doctrine of harm reduction only applies to the drug laws themselves. Do we always want to be putting people in jail for drug law violations?
The CA voters and much of the country want us to find other approaches.
As far as people committing crimes while intoxicated, the law remains the same. Voluntary intoxication is no excuse.
SJG
Log in to vote
Court ordered treatment via prop 360 isn't that great. The health education funds doing the rehabs are mostly religious groups using drug or sex education programs as a way to proselytize jn prisons and jails. At most they detox and then get sent back into the same environment. Halfway houses don't really work well either.
Harm reduction addresses needs that lead to preventing arrests in the first place. And works with the addicts. It's a community development approach.
Log in to vote
Prop 36 is as far as the electorate wanted to go at that point.
Getting exposed to the salvation groups and giving them public money of course is not good. Preventing arrests would mean decriminalization of at least some drug use.
en.wikipedia.org.
www.prop36.org
SJG
Log in to vote
Harm reduction is decriminalization. It treats addiction as a social and health problem rather than a criminal one.
Log in to vote
Well, deeper harm reduction than what we have no is decriminalization.
But our electorate is constantly being fed fear over drugs. So they haven't wanted to go further yet.
SJG
Log in to vote
These are problems that need to be solved by experts not herd consensus
Log in to vote
But this is a Democracy.
Most of the time when things are done by state legislatures there is more give and take, and there are more experts involved.
When done at the ballot box, there is less compromise and the results are more extreme, like legalizing marijuana.
I think Chesa Boudin in San Francisco does not want to prosecute most misdemeanors, and that does mean Prostitution. It probably also involves the Drug Laws. And the guy in NYC probably is about the same.
How are these approaches doing?
SJG
Log in to vote
This isn't about prostitution and you're just trying to.imitate dougster with all the dumb questions
Log in to vote
Icey I think you are mistaken about someone being dougster.
I think if you look at what Chesa Bouding is doing in San Francisco and what they guy in New York is doing, you'll find an example of how things go when drugs laws are not enforced.
I would be interested to know about this.
SJG
Log in to vote
^ I broadly favor a harm reduction approach, but Boudin isn't an example you want to follow on much.
Log in to vote
Got any examples of DA's or legislators have ratcheted down drug enforcement in favor of harm reduction?
SJG
GRAHAM BOND LIVE JULY 1 1972 part 1
www.youtube.com
Log in to vote
Boudin thinks that ignoring crime will force the city to address the root causes of crime. And that's not going to happen. California govs are basically owned by real estate developers and their interests and they view crime as detrimental to property values and don't view community development as profitable. So California cities keep struggling with social problems that lead to criminal problems.
Personally I think Boudin is more motivated by careerism than social justice. The system is clogged and backlogged. And very expensive to run. Ignoring crimes he defines as non violent lifts a lot of stress on the judicial system. He hides behind social justice knowing full well there is no public health or social infrastructure to help those people.
Log in to vote
"Boudin thinks that ignoring crime will force the city to address the root causes of crime."
I don't think this is really true, but I see your point.
"California govs are basically owned by real estate developers "
This is 100% true and it has always been like this in CA, going back before 1900.
Does Boudin decline to enforce misdemeanor drug cases, and is this the harm reduction approach which you want to see, and how is it working?
SJG
Log in to vote
Our legal marijuana dispensaries cross some new lines during the COVID crisis. Not much else was keeping our arts and entertainment newspaper going, so these dispensaries started doing quite sexualized advertisements, emphasizing what is already obvious that marijuana is tobacco 2.0.
SJG
Log in to vote
Progressive love for failed nothing losers is hysterical. The hard working christian Dad is demonized. The useless felonious scumbag drug addict deserves compassion.
Log in to vote
I've helped put an authoritarian Christian Dad into San Quentin.
SJG
Christine Keeler - Profumo Scandal
www.youtube.com
Log in to vote
When I was in elementary school the spent a lot of time trying to educate us about the dangers in drugs. And I think what they said was right. They showed us movies, and they had former addicts talk to us. This included a young woman who said that she had a very expensive heroin habit and did prostitution to support it. We had to get some adult explanation to know what that meant.
Now they told us that marijuana was a gateway drug.
Mostly I would say that this is true. But I would say that it is alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and the mood alterants that people get through the doctor's prescription pad that are the gateway.
And it is a gateway idea, that one should use chemical mood alterants, that makes one susceptible.
I think in the anti-drug education they made it look like we were all susceptible. This isn't really true though if you just remember that people are fucking morons and so you should not listen to them, and if you reject up front the idea of needing chemical mood alterants.
SJG
Log in to vote