B.C. doctors given Health Canada approval to prescribe heroin

That's fantastic.

Slowly, the fascist walls of this war on drugs have begun to crumble.

Harper and his hidden agenda Conservatives know their ulterior motive anti-drug policies have begun to lose their sway. In the face of new or recent, science-driven, factual ideology, adults of all ages who once stubbornly walked and talked the path of the Conservative, have begun to embrace the truth. And I rejoice for being alive to witness the recent events of late which have contributed to slowly but surely undermining this 40+ year-old war on drug users which has caused untold amounts of irreparable damage since its inception, ironically by a crooked president.

I optimistically await the day, when no one has their freedom snatched away because they felt the need to self-medicate or experiment with a psychotropic substance. A day when we shall look upon the so-called "war on drugs" in bemusement and sadness at the hands of capitalist hypocrites who where in a position to stop or avoid this altogether, but rather chose to look the other way because of the 'financial benefits' awaiting them.

Lastly, one day, I hope that those in power who would choose to break their promises during elections, particularly in relation to drug policy reform, are impeached and banned for the rest of their lives from politics in general.

Edit - I seriously need to relocate to Vancouver. I grow tired of Toronto. Partly because the Leafs continue to suck.

 

7 years is the maximum sentence for a conviction, not mandatory. Compared with a rapist who faces a maximum penalty of life. Your comparison is just wrong. If they do not have mandatory sentences that does not automatically mean they serve less time.
Perhaps in a particular case a user may end up serving more time overall than a serial rapist, if you were convicted several times and given maximum penalties, but in the United States mandatory sentencing exists for both and is comparably greater for rape.
Drug laws were made to curtail drug addictions and societal harm from drug abuse. The rail-road theory may have been relevant 80 years ago but by taking it way out of context it becomes conspiratorial nonsense.
You do vouch for heroin use by agreeing with the earlier comment that it is harmless.
Prison has served as an institute of rehabilitation and the current trend is heading back that direction in the United States, but political views do not define what law enforcement actually does for people.
The classic case of heroin withdrawal as "physical" addiction is not useful in explaining other addictions that also take control over people. Your own experience in prison has shaped your views as well as your exposure to individual cases, but it still does not make your arguments any more valid, if they are not correct. A serial rapist is addicted; that was your example of someone who deserves punitive sentencing.
Choosing to do heroin can likely be used as an indirect method of estimating what characteristics a person has, I never made any assertions as to what those characteristics are or the strength of the correlation. I only disagree with appraising the situation users find themselves as always being someone else's fault. If you are trying to blame other people though, why not the dealer? That is basically where the US government has focused and about half of federal convictions are simply users. They will not let you go if they find you breaking the law but they are not actively hunting individual users. The UK probably has similar ideals.
A bandaid works by covering a wound to keep it free of debris allowing the wound to heal, um... I understand what you mean by calling heroin a bandaid, but it does not work as a bandaid, and am stumped as to how this became an issue.
It is not my fault that heroin addicts are notorious thieves. Some may not be, but an employer does not know that. People leaving prison are unable to get certain jobs not because they were "in prison" but because of crimes they were found guilty of.

 

The United States prison system has a 70% recidivism rate, look it up if you do not believe me. Pull the private prison corporations' gargantuan phalluses out of your rectum and stop pretending prison does anything other than rape the citizenry of their dignity, livelihood and ability to contribute to the tax base (the American model that is). Rehabilitation does not mean almost guaranteeing someone will offend again, Dur!

 

(What do you think the recidivism rate is for criminals who are not arrested?)
Is that 70% recidivism over a 3 year period?
It probably was, if we found the same report. 25% completely returned to prison.
I was surprised to learn recidivism does not necessarily mean a return to prison.
This high rate shows prisons are not tremendously effective at changing lifestyles. From my own experience changing people is nigh impossible.
Prison is not responsible for creating these criminals, obviously they were criminals already and the stories I have heard from innocent people wrongly convicted is not that they were turned into criminals by prison.
5% of the population statisticly winds up in state or federal prison. That is a lot of people, around 33% of those are drug convictions, the majority of those, perhaps 66%, are for trafficking, which can mean getting caught with a weeks supply, in the case of Florida, or with federal a kilo.
Also in Florida multiple studies comparing private prisons found a lower recidivism rate in state institutes, possibly due to reentry services or simply age difference, according to the report.
A study of Oklahama state prisons in a 4 year period had a recidivism of 30% and 33% for private.
I was also surprised that drug users did not have the highest recidivism rates.

1. Federal Recidivim (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17)
2. Oklahoma/Florida Recidivism (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=KNTPVGU9JgCyQwZH-EG6tg&bvm=bv.57967247,d.aWM)
3. Florida Mandatory (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=kaIE3pxSqT1A9CVnR62Deg&bvm=bv.57967247,d.aWM)
4. Federal Mandatory (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ah6uagO34DXf5qQ&bvm=bv.57967247,d.aWM&cad=rja)

 

8) .

 

What do you think the recidivism rate is for criminals who are not arrested?

Those who don't get arrested can still contribute to the tax base some day, smartass. A criminal record prevents that. If your demented reasoning was correct the crime rate would be dropping. You advocate wasting billions of dollars on imprisonment to accomplish nothing. If you aren't a troll who is full of shit then why hasn't mass imprisonment reduced crime?

 

Who says mass arrest hasn't reduced crime? What is crime? When did mass arrest begin? You know back in the 70's the penalties for having dope was a lot stiffer than it is today, in New York you got a life sentence for possession of heroin.
They began instituting these anti drug laws following Civil War morphine addictions as well as an opium craze, which can literally bankrupt nations. There aren't any reliable figures from that time to make your comparison. We are flying blind.
(I wouldn't bother being on bluelight if I was anti drug. Stuff happens to people whether you do drugs or not, but I'm not going to push anyone else's ideas or push my own ideas unless I know that they're true. I've been lied to in the past and have learned, like one thing, so I don't know everything but I react when I hear people talk about drugs.)

I know your to lazy and half-assed to research this.

Law Reform Commision Report, Mandatory Sentences. June 2013. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8PBUNtSuNFFwYU-VSSPzQqg&bvm=bv.57967247,d.b2I)
England and China: The Opium Wars, 1839-60 (http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/opiumwars/opiumwars1.html)

 

7 years is the maximum sentence for a conviction, not mandatory.

7 Years is what I'd get minimum (mandatory). It could be up to 20 years depending on where I'm busted and the amount I'm in possession of.

Also, I don't know what source(s) you're basing these numbers on, but consider the fact that I don't live in the same country you do. Not anymore anyways.

Compared with a rapist who faces a maximum penalty of life. Your comparison is just wrong.

There are inmates serving life for non-violent possession of a CI substance without intent to distribute. Once again, the amount of time you get depends on (among other things) if you have priors, if you're getting high near a community center, etc.

Furthermore, again, don't know where you're source lies, but these numbers vary big time depending on the state.

If they do not have mandatory sentences that does not automatically mean they serve less time.

Perhaps.

However, with a minimum mandatory sentence, the presiding judge is obligated by law to sentence you to no less than what the law states. And many judges are aware of the disparity regarding (for example) possession of crack vs cocaine, but alas, their hands are tied.

Perhaps in a particular case a user may end up serving more time overall than a serial rapist, if you were convicted several times and given maximum penalties, but in the United States mandatory sentencing exists for both and is comparably greater for rape.

Varies by state. Some states, such as those in the so-called 'Bible Belt' have some of the harshest drug laws.

Drug laws were made to curtail drug addictions and societal harm from drug abuse.

I'd love to see some proof.

You do vouch for heroin use by agreeing with the earlier comment that it is harmless.

Boy you just love twisting my words around to suit your holier than thou needs.

Pure heroin (diacetylmorphine) is routinely prescribed in several parts of Europe to relieve severe pain, or to relieve cravings and halt acute withdrawal.

Long-term chronic use of pharmaceutical grade heroin is relatively harmless, and, it's quite safer than the long-term chronic consumption of either alcohol or tobacco.

The biggest risk with regards to heroin (or any opioid) centers around respiratory depression. However, in a setting where a patient or recreational user knows the dosage (s)he is about to use and also compensates for tolerance, the risk goes down significantly.

Prison has served as an institute of rehabilitation and the current trend is heading back that direction in the United States, but political views do not define what law enforcement actually does for people.

The prison system in the US has turned into an industry for people to make money off of. It's quite sad you don't see this.

The classic case of heroin withdrawal as "physical" addiction is not useful in explaining other addictions that also take control over people.

First off - what you are calling a "physical" addiction isn't an addiction at all, but rather physical dependency which is formed with the chronic long term use of any and all opioids. The reason why heroin addicts begin to crave the drug once the acute withdrawal phase begins is because they know that the agonizingly painful state they are in will immediately pass if they continue to use the (pro)drug.

Secondly - What's your point? I don't recall stating that it is.

Your own experience in prison has shaped your views as well as your exposure to individual cases, but it still does not make your arguments any more valid, if they are not correct.

And which arguments of mine are not correct?

A serial rapist is addicted; that was your example of someone who deserves punitive sentencing.

Actually, I never said anything about a serial rapist "being addicted". Not sure what you're talking about.

Choosing to do heroin can likely be used as an indirect method of estimating what characteristics a person has, I never made any assertions as to what those characteristics are or the strength of the correlation. I only disagree with appraising the situation users find themselves as always being someone else's fault.

This is a very complicated topic - partly because every heroin addict has a long, unique story to tell about how (s)he became a junkie. Best to not assume something about us if you don't know how we came to be. I'm not saying that I think you're wrong on this one, but I don't think you're correct either.

Every one of "them" is a human being, and they've been through a lot before running into you. How can you know for certain that someone else isn't to blame for their habit when you don't even know their first name?

If you are trying to blame other people though, why not the dealer?

Blame him for what? I sought him out to help me escape the physical and emotional pain I live with daily when sober and lucid. If I'm gonna blame someone, it's gonna be whoever or whatever contributed to making my sober life a living hell.

The last time I blamed my dealer for anything, it was because he broke a promise he made to me years ago to eventually lower the price of the smack I grab from him. As a result, he stopped answering my calls.

That is basically where the US government has focused and about half of convictions are simple users. They will not let you go if they find you breaking the law but they are not actively hunting simple users.

I don't know where in the US you live (and I don't care), but if you ever get a chance to go to NYC, keep a close eye on racial profiling and "probable cause" tactics the cops employ. It's sickening to watch.

A bandaid works by covering a wound to keep it free of debris allowing the wound to heal, um... I understand what you mean by calling heroin a bandaid, but it does not work as a bandaid, and am stumped as to how this became an issue.

The metaphor has to do with the bandaid giving the wearer peace of mind that it will temporarily aid in the healing process. Without the body's ability to clot an open wound, the bandaid wouldn't do much good as the bleeding would continue and eventually seep through.

It is not my fault that heroin addicts are notorious thieves. Some may not be, but an employer does not know that. People leaving prison are unable to get certain jobs not because they were "in prison" but because of crimes that they were found guilty of.

I don't think anyone is blaming you.

I doubt many employers care what someone did once they see the felony conviction.

 

7 Years is what I'd get minimum (mandatory). It could be up to 20 years depending on where I'm busted and the amount I'm in possession of.

Also, I don't know what source(s) you're basing these numbers on, but consider the fact that I don't live in the same country you do. Not anymore anyways.

Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Drug Trafficking (Schedule I)
R. v. Hernandez 2012 BCSC 238 6 mo 4 g heroin

That offense is 7 years... in Florida.
Are we are talking about mandatory sentencing in New York, maximum sentencing in Canada, or keeping it general, because I have tropisticated from UK to Australia trying to sort it out?
Good news is, you may not possibly be riskng 7-years in prison.

Pure heroin (diacetylmorphine) is routinely prescribed in several parts of Europe to relieve severe pain, or to relieve cravings and halt acute withdrawal.

Long-term chronic use of pharmaceutical grade heroin is relatively harmless, and, it's quite safer than the long-term chronic consumption of either alcohol or tobacco.

The biggest risk with regards to heroin (or any opioid) centers around respiratory depression. However, in a setting where a patient or recreational user knows the dosage (s)he is about to use and also compensates for tolerance, the risk goes down significantly.

Well OK then. Relative to what?

I don't think anyone is blaming you.

Secondly - What's your point? I don't recall stating that it is. Actually, I never said anything about a serial rapist "being addicted". Not sure what you're talking about.

I doubt many employers care what someone did once they see the felony conviction.

I feel like you have been very accusatory in your remarks.
I said, "People do not want to hire junkies because they steal things...", and you responded, "Not all 'junkies' steal things. And if you believe we do, then I feel sorry for you."
I do not and if you believe I do I guess it is best you say soemthing, but really?
...
You also seem to believe I do not understand addiction and I thought the point you were trying to make is that addiction makes prison unavoidable and drug addicts victims of criminal circumstance. I was just pointing out that heroin has no monopoly on addiction and that, clearly, a serial rapist or serial killer can both be addictions as well. They both have a very low recidivism btw.
I do understand the problem with addiction. It has something to do with not acheiving a goal but feeling like you can and expending too much time/energy to acheive that goal. To fix it you need to love the emptiness. I also understand that this only one idea of what addiction is, not a conclusive one either, and that we do not understand addiction well enough to resolve the issue of addiction.
...
Employers ask for your record and have a little box to fill-in what you were convicted of on your job application. When was the last time you applied for a job? What stops an employer from being an ex-con or looking at the box? In my extremely limited experience some of them do look at that box and make exceptions.

I don't know where in the US you live (and I don't care), but if you ever get a chance to go to NYC, keep a close eye on racial profiling and "probable cause" tactics the cops employ. It's sickening to watch.

This hurts my feelings. I guess that you travel to N.Y. from Toronto to get your gear and see the borough through the eyes of a criminal. I travel there and find something else. New York is a special place, no doubt about that. Your viewpoint may be just as slanted as the police and, in case you are wondering, profiling does not work.
Maybe not anyone you know, and you are welcome to disagree (but please keep it cordial), but by sheer logic if drugs did not affect the millions of people living in New York, then they would not care and this long-lasting issue, this law, would not burden you... wait, in fact, you are a burden on the law. People have to deal with you and you ignore them; it is rather vain the way you have tailored the whole world to, well, suit you. I sympathize with you but I have to sympathize with your enemies as well. I know that people actually have a heart, not the stupid egositical lonely policy-man in a suit and a high-rise office we fantasize counting his coinage.
I mean, obviously you would disagree.

These numbers vary big time depending on the state.

I realize that but I still feel strongly the rapist gets more time.

...judges are aware of the disparity regarding (for example) possession of crack vs cocaine, but alas, their hands are tied.

The disparity was very intentional and extreme. Even after the margin was cut back, it still is incredibly unbalanced.
The story goes... Drug laws were made to curtail drug addictions and societal harm from drug abuse.

I'd love to see some proof.

The Opium Wars?
They made crack a harsh penalty because it screwed Harlem, an affluent black community. It screwed it before the prison sentences for possession. This can be verified but it will take time.

Boy you just love twisting my words around to suit your holier than thou needs.

That is not really my intent.

The prison system in the US has turned into an industry for people to make money off of. It's quite sad you don't see this.

I hear about it. I don't have any particular need to study prisons.

 

I have tropisticated from UK to Australia trying to sort it out?

I "tropisticate" your complete ignorance and bias.

 

Listen, pmoseman, you just don't understand what you speak of. I sliced as an iv user of opiates for a couple years. I shared a similar view to yours until I experienced It. There are scumbags in all subsets of people.

I sugest you reread the entire thread With a more compassionate eye.

 

Who says mass arrest hasn't reduced crime? What is crime? When did mass arrest begin? You know back in the 70's the penalties for having dope was a lot striffer than it is today, in New York you got a life sentence for possession of heroin.
They began instituting these anti drug laws following Civil War morphine addictions as well as an opium craze, which can literally bankrupt nations. There aren't any reliable figures from that time to make your comparison. We are flying blind.
(I wouldn't bother being on bluelight if I was anti drug. Stuff happens to people whether you do drugs or not, but I'm not going to push anyone else's ideas or push my own ideas unless I know that they're true. I've been lied to in the past and have learned, like one thing, so I don't know everything but I react when I hear people talk about drugs.)

The United States has third world crime rates. No other developed country has such levels of crime. Who says? Anyone using empirical data, which you aren't. The latest wave of mass arrests began in the 90's. The law you so ignorant refer to that was made after the civil war was the Pure Food and Drug Act.This barely effected incarceration AT ALL. Your an idiot if you think it did, I know your to lazy and half-assed to research this. It did however, lead to the greatest drop in addiction rates in American addiction rates in history because now door-to-door potion/tonic salesmen, who were very common at the time, had to list ingredients on their bottles, which were up to 50% morphine.

 

I seriously hope your being facetious or playing the devils advocate moseman. Life is very different than what you see at the end of your nose.

 

Anyone using empirical data.

So is this emperical data?

Offenders are being victimized by the system to protect precious alcohol and tobacco profits.

Rehabilitation does not mean almost guaranteeing someone will offend again.

A criminal record prevents contribution to the tax base, some day.

The crime rate is increasing.

Mass imprisonment has not reduced crime.

The United States has third world crime rates.

No other developed country has such levels of crime.

The latest wave of mass arrests began in the 90's.

The Pure Food and Drug Act barely effected incarceration AT ALL.

[The Pure Food and Drug Act] lead to the greatest drop in American addiction rates in history.

Door-to-door potion/tonic salesmen were very common at the time.

The bottles [of tonic] were up to 50% morphine.

 

So is this emperical data?

The majority of those claims are supported by empirical data. If you weren't to much of a lazy smart-ass to look it up. Once again you slobbishly dodge responding to our points and just make a smartass response. You hold us to the standards of a god in a debate and yourself to the standards of a 50-cent Haitian prostitute. It is like arguing with a creationist. You act as if your ignorant bullshit is self-evident and hold everyone else to an impossible standard of proof. There should really be camps in the far north for people like you to live out your government-subservient beliefs during hard labour.

You know full well that even if I perfectly cited all my comments (you haven't) you would still be bent over spreading your cheeks for the status quo. It would take a bullet to change your psychotically pretentious mind.

 

Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Drug Trafficking (Schedule I)
R. v. Hernandez 2012 BCSC 238 6 mo 4 g heroin

That offense is 7 years... in Florida.

I'm sorry to hear that. I knew a guy who could go through 4g of smack in about 2 days. I don't know what happened to him.

Are we are talking about mandatory sentencing in New York, maximum sentencing in Canada, or keeping it general, because I have tropisticated from UK to Australia trying to sort it out?

We are talking about Toronto.

Good news is, you may not possibly be riskng 7-years in prison.

Let's hope so, but I do not wish to further discuss my priors.

Well OK then. Relative to what?

For goodness' sake... relative to buying it from a dealer on some street corner because it's always cut with something. The amount of actual heroin present can fluctuate quickly and severely. This is usually what leads to a cautious (always clean needles, same dealer) long term heroin addict overdosing. The dealer's source gets batches of heroin from a new middleman and it's purer and the dealer don't know and that's all it takes for that aforementioned tolerant long term user to drop dead.

Could you imagine if Tylenol was sold in 1kg bricks of powder at pharmacies all over the US? What if it was sold cut 50/50 with some non-active ingredient? Within a few days, there would be an epidemic of death due to acute liver failure througout the nation.

I feel like you have been very accusatory in your remarks.
I said, "People do not want to hire junkies because they steal things...", and you responded, "Not all 'junkies' steal things. And if you believe we do, then I feel sorry for you."
I do not and if you believe I do I guess it is best you say soemthing, but really?

I feel sorry for you as in I pity you - not, I blame you or it's all your fault. Not at all.

I know how it feels to be robbed from. That's why I would never put someone else through it.

Just like how I feel that I know how it feels to be addicted to opioids. So whenever I see someone in acute withdrawal, I'm overwhelmed with pity for that person. God I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy - to be left in that state for days, sometimes weeks.

I do understand the problem with addiction. It has something to do with not acheiving a goal but feeling like you can and expending too much time/energy to acheive that goal. To fix it you need to love the emptiness. I also understand that this only one idea of what addiction is, not a conclusive one either, and that we do not understand addiction well enough to resolve the issue of addiction.

About a year ago, I was checking out some YouTube videos, and by chance I stumbled upon a short video in which a man began to describe in his own words what it feels like to be addicted to heroin, and other potent opioids. His words were meant for those without first-hand experience to understand.

It was such a profound definition that I was completely stunned, that I copied the definition to text, and you can read it below:

Let's say you were sent to a desert, all by yourself, without any supply of water.

You would dehydrate, right?

Now let's say you collapse from the unbearable heat of the desert.

You wake up and there is a person standing there with an ice-cold bottle of water.

He puts the bottle of water next to you and makes you promise not to drink it.

You agree, he leaves.

Now what do you think is gonna be on your mind all day?

This is the state of a heroin/morphine/hydromorphone/oxycodone/oxymorphone/etc. addict's thought process.

And I agree with that definition 100%.

Employers ask for your record and have a little box to fill-in what you were convicted of on your job application. When was the last time you applied for a job? What stops an employer from being an ex-con or looking at the box? In my extremely limited experience some of them do look at that box and make exceptions.

Last time I applied for a job was in 2009. There was no application to fill out, just my cover letter, resume, and sources if requested. To be honest, I don't recall the interviewer asking about any criminal history.

This hurts my feelings. I guess that you travel to N.Y. from Toronto to get your gear and see the borough through the eyes of a criminal. I travel there and find something else. New York is a special place, no doubt about that. Your viewpoint may be just as slanted as the police and, in case you are wondering, profiling does not work.

Every year since at least 2001 in NYC, somewhere around ~90% of stop and frisks are done on black, latino, and other minority groups, yet the majority (whites) accounted for only ~10%. Is that not racial profiling to you?

P.S. You can guess all you want about me, but so far you're batting a solid 0.00.

Maybe not anyone you know, and you are welcome to disagree (but please keep it cordial), but by sheer logic if drugs did not affect the millions of people living in New York, then they would not care and this long-lasting issue, this law, would not burden you... wait, in fact, you are a burden on the law.

I feel so special that you said I'm a burden on the law. I was expecting terrorists, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, even trolls - but me? Wow.

People have to deal with you and you ignore them; it is rather vain the way you have tailored the whole world to, well, suit you.

People... like who exactly?

The cops who have a duty to play cat and mouse with me because I want to alter my state of mind without their consent? I do my best not to ignore them.

The tax payers who had to foot the bill for my "debt to society"? You think I had a good time in prison? Here's an idea: Demand that the government act like a true democracy and decriminalize drug use.

And it is extremely vain the way you continue to judge me, and the way you persist with your google and wiki-based expert knowledge/experience of drug addiction, prison, and so forth. It's laughable actually. The only reason I'm not laughing and insulting you for it is because I'm trying to adhere to your request of being cordial.

There are times when I think we're arguing semantics, but then you come up with some random rebuke, and it makes me wonder whether you're desparately trying to elicit an emotional response from me. In other words, am I being asked to feed a troll?

You've wasted enough of my time Mr. Mosesman. Have a nice life in FL. Mind your head for falling coconuts.

One last thing - If it's any consolation, I absolutely LOVE visiting New York. Fantastic city IMO.



Isn't New York City the oldest American settlement after Jamestown?

 

I sugest you reread the entire thread With a more compassionate eye.

I think I have been compassionate this entire thread. Having done zero previous research, I think using heroin for treatment is a great idea. Immersion is a valid treatment method is psychology that seems to work. But has it been done before? Important question. I think it will need funding, of course. You can't just make it legal to prescribe heroin and not have funded studies. So I was reading the comments and... if you look at page 2 of this thread, someone said funding should not be a priority.
I know that when the research fails, being underfunded, anyone can say it failed because of lack of funding.
I say to you now, furthermore, if these studies are attempted and fail it will lose all credibility and in the end we will all have a heaping shit sandwich to eat.
So, the very next page starts with a statement, heroin needs no funding because it is an industry.
This attitude, this comment, is out of touch. It is a slap in the face. Can you convince someone to promote research with this attitude? Heroin used for treatment cannot be sold to fund research. Seriously. If you do not like the profits made by private prisons what would you think of private heroin research?
I do not react to this person by calling them a goat-herder, I ask them what is the funding is for. That is compassion as I understand it, giving someone the latitude to figure it out themselves without taking a shot at them.
So now, continuing on page 3, someone makes the, frankly evil, comment that heroin is harmless. Really? So all those people who die from heroin overdoses, their lives are not worth two shits in a frog pond? Great.
So let's talk about prison. I am down with ZEN. You stick my ass in a prison and I walk out the wall via rainbow. That is enlightenment and transcendence. That prison to me is another place for life to occur, another opportunity to find God. Do I want to be murdered in prison? No. Did you know the odds of going murderless in prison are actually better than the odds in your own state? Really.
I realize not everyone has the level of ability to tolerate what I do, but, if we are talking about harm, in what I would consider a traditional sense, then what "harm" actually comes to a person put in a prison?
In my view, prison is not really designed to harm people if they get to watch television, read books, take classes, receive counseling, medical care, decrease sentencing, and so on. At any rate my statement should really be considered as harm in prison in comparison to harm from heroin, because I was just starting an argument with that person, perhaps we could trade blows, but they have yet to respond. I see now that my response got a big reaction
So ya. I think we left the point of my statement far behind but I am greatful to talk with so many people.

The majority of those claims are supported by empirical data. If you weren't to much of a lazy smart-ass to look it up. Once again you slobbishly dodge responding to our points and just make a smartass response. You hold us to the standards of a god in a debate and yourself to the standards of a 50-cent Haitian prostitute. It is like arguing with a creationist. You act as if your ignorant bullshit is self-evident and hold everyone else to an impossible standard of proof. There should really be camps in the far north for people like you to live out your government-subservient beliefs during hard labour.

You know full well that even if I perfectly cited all my comments (you haven't) you would still be bent over spreading your cheeks for the status quo. It would take a bullet to change your psychotically pretentious mind.

I see, now we are lambasting foreign prostitutes.
Actually, I cited my sources.
It would take a locomotive size butt-plug to stop the volumes of shit pouring out the ass you are speaking with.
If only the "majority" of the statement I listed from you are supported by emperical data, then can you reveal, which ones are not?
If I had not laid waste to any of your derisions yet, it is only because I am waiting for them to pile up first.

This is the state of a heroin/morphine/hydromorphone/oxycodone/oxymorphone/etc. addict's thought process.

And I agree with that definition 100%.

This makes sense to me. That is why I think a person needs to adapt and embrace those throes of dehydration, because it is their salavation, and the longer that pain can last the better it becomes.

...am I being asked to feed a troll?

Yes. You caught me. I am a troll.

 

Re: empirical data. The point about about the crime rate increasing, although it may be in regards to drug crime, idk and neither do you.

So, why not lay waste to my points now, instead of waiting unto eternity? It is because you cannot. I will not take the hours necessary to cite everything since you don't and wouldn't read them if I did. Pick some of these points you believe are untrue. So far I have penetrated your arguments so deep they have perforated your sigmoid colon. Quickly, before you succumb to acute peritonitis and die.

 

I may not know anything about crime rate data but I also did not claim to know anything about crime rate data.
I know it is complex and if you had it I don't know what it would prove.
I'm not going to sit and proclaim what is wrong why it was what you said because I have no idea. That whole paragraph is suspect.

 

Having done zero previous research, I think using heroin for treatment is a great idea. Immersion is a valid treatment method is psychology that seems to work. But has it been done before? Important question. I think it will need funding, of course. You can't just make it legal to prescribe heroin and not have funded studies. So I was reading the comments and... if you look at page 2 of this thread, someone said funding should not be a priority.
I know that when the research fails, being underfunded, anyone can say it failed because of lack of funding.
I say to you now, furthermore, if these studies are attempted and fail it will lose all credibility and in the end we will all have a heaping shit sandwich to eat.
So, the very next page starts with a statement, heroin needs no funding because it is an industry.
This attitude, this comment, is out of touch. It is a slap in the face. Can you convince someone to promote research with this attitude? Heroin used for treatment cannot be sold to fund research. Seriously. If you do not like the profits made by private prisons what would you think of private heroin research?

This study has already been done in Canada in fact, it was called NAOMI, and it showed very clearly that heroin maintenance was effective for improving the quality of life of hardcore addicts. And the program itself has been done before: for example, Switzerland has a heroin prescription program. I agree that these studies need funding of course, but I think the poster was trying to make the point that, if heroin were allowed to be sold legally at a price comparable to other generic pharmaceuticals, funding would be a non-issue, because users would easily be able to pay for it themselves.

 

Originally he was saying we should legalize it without considering the cost. Then he said it would not take any funding. Well, it might not, but if it did not work out and did not receive funding, like other methods, I am sure it would be a big deal then. Like the study was undermined for the interest of Big Pharma etcetera.
I guess I had forgot the point of my own comment. lol
What do you mean by, "legally at a price comparable to other generic"?
Are addiction programs paid for by users and medications subsidized and how much do they cost? Are there generic/affordable vs brand-name medications? Would private investors be able to invest in their own research and provide the means of production?