B.C. injection site risks offending world

Sgt. Stadanko said:
It's a shame you had to celebrate your centennial post with a shambolic display of blind patriotism.



My planet? Or my country?


Meh, I'm done with this anyways..

Nice, pick on my choice of words which was obviously a careless mistake, you sure showed me.

And this isn't blind patriotism, yours is blind hate. All you fools have been saying is hurrr vietnam and hurrr iraq , america is bad. Why don't you pick a specific gripe with my country instead of making vague, ignorant, and hateful attacks.

After I continually tell you to focus on the topic at hand, you still veer off and make an attack on America the crux of your posts.

Did you even address the clinic topic once in this thread? It seems like you came here for the sole purpose of attacking America. Jesus christ, you're the equivalent of the rednecks in my country. Instead of thinking that Europe and Canada consists entirely of homosexuals, you blindly hate America based on a few events.

And for cripes' sake, make a valid point instead of throwing attacks. Do you not actually want to engage in discussion, or was I right in inferring that you're just here to stir trouble?
 
We don't have to, there is nothing to respond to, you don't think governments should be funding this type of thing, good for you, theres no response that refutes that effectively enough to get you to go away. Unfortionatly for your beliefs there is no government in the first world that agrees with you, so you point is basically you're just saying, I'm a libertarian! If you have a problem with how taxes are used, ellect a couple Libertarians to your federal government instead of complaining about how governments were designed to work, oh wait you can't. These programs were a step in the right direction regardless of how they were funded.
 
Sgt. Stadanko said:
Afghanistan.. (where opium production sky-rocketed, resulting in a flood of heroin to the global market, THANKS TO YOU!!!)

You'd rather pay taxes funding a war on terror which results in illicit heroin reaching the streets of your very nation? Pssch..

I think this is sort of relevant to the topic.. more so than threats against every other country on the planet.

Which is the sort of thing you hear rednecks in your country saying.

I'm not getting fired up here and attacking America arbitrarily. I found your claims offensive rather than defensive (Isn't it just great, living in fear that we could get bombed to hell?).

Basically, the actions of the Afghanistan invasion caused a massive influx on the supply of opioids to the West, causing untold misery to those who have went down the path to heroin, their families and also affecting the taxpayer, whose money is spent on efforts to stem trafficking etc..
 
However, I'll argue on the merits just for the purposes of discussion. Why should my hard earned money go towards helping someone who chose to put themselves in the situation of being addicted to a drug? Addicts can't technically help it, but even they made the first choice of taking a drug for recreational purposes.
those in favor of these programs usually think the same way as you. it's not just mercy. it actually saves the government and citizens money. less black market violent crime, less theft, less medical emergencies, less overdosing, less miscellaneous medical conditions

the people in support of these programs operate on a cost/benefit analysis, it's not some errand of mercy. so according to your line of reasoning, we SHOULD give free heroin to addicts
 
qwe said:
those in favor of these programs usually think the same way as you. it's not just mercy. it actually saves the government and citizens money. less black market violent crime, less theft, less medical emergencies, less overdosing, less miscellaneous medical conditions

the people in support of these programs operate on a cost/benefit analysis, it's not some errand of mercy. so according to your line of reasoning, we SHOULD give free heroin to addicts

You aren't speaking of the benefits of creating harm-reduction clinics, you are speaking of the benefits associated with legalization of all narcotics. Clinics don't stop junkies from robbing people to fund their drug habit, nor does it stop violent crime associated with the black market.

Trust me, I want all drugs to be legalized. I know the benefits of legalization, as you just pointed out.

I'm not getting fired up here and attacking America arbitrarily. I found your claims offensive rather than defensive (Isn't it just great, living in fear that we could get bombed to hell?).

Basically, the actions of the Afghanistan invasion caused a massive influx on the supply of opioids to the West, causing untold misery to those who have went down the path to heroin, their families and also affecting the taxpayer, whose money is spent on efforts to stem trafficking etc..


Yes you are, I didn't start attacking other countries. The fact that I'm American really has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and your continual efforts to bash the US just reveals your substandard intelligence and unmistakable bias.

Wow, I'm not sure I'm entirely understanding your position. You're blaming the US for the oversupply of heroin in the West? Does this mean if all drugs were to be legalized, you would oppose the legalization of heroin? Does this mean you actually are an advocate on the war on drugs? And does this mean you are releasing the responsibility of heroin users from the choices they made simply because more heroin is available at a lower price? What an obtuse point of view, if I may say so myself.

Let me make my position clear, I would rather have the streets of the US flooded with heroin. I have no problems with drugs; as I said before, I think they should all be legalized. However, I am a bit skeptical about simply throwing away government money to help these addicts.

We don't have to, there is nothing to respond to, you don't think governments should be funding this type of thing, good for you, theres no response that refutes that effectively enough to get you to go away. Unfortionatly for your beliefs there is no government in the first world that agrees with you, so you point is basically you're just saying, I'm a libertarian! If you have a problem with how taxes are used, ellect a couple Libertarians to your federal government instead of complaining about how governments were designed to work, oh wait you can't. These programs were a step in the right direction regardless of how they were funded.

Fair enough, my views are libertarian and you don't seem to agree with them. However, conservatives and liberals don't agree with you either, as I don't see many of them advocating for either the legalization of drugs or harm-reduction clinics.

Most governments do agree with at least one side of my views though: they shouldn't have to spend money to help druggies.

However, in a nation that has adopted national health care, I could see the benefits of constructing such clinics, as health care costs are intricately tied with unsafe drug use. I can't personally speak for other countries because I have little knowledge of how they operate, but in the US such clinics would be highly inappropriate.
 
Ahh jesus christ man, there's a profound difference between ILLICIT heroin and pharmaceutical heroin. This is elementary stuff, and we've been through it before in a thread concerning the legalization of heroin in my country (UK).

Illegally produced heroin as we all know is liable to being stepped on with all sorts of shit. Hell, a dealer can get rid of an unwanted customer by selling them heroin of substantial purity or mixing it with fentanyl.

If it was legit then there would be a clean supply of heroin produced in proper laboratory conditions within the constraints of the FDA, WHO etc.

Cartels won't be able to fund terrorist activities with money obtained from the trafficking of drugs.. I don't know how you can say I advocate the war on drugs from what I've been saying.
And does this mean you are releasing the responsibility of heroin users from the choices they made simply because more heroin is available at a lower price?

No personal attacks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Theres no need for any of you guys to get personal. Keep it civil or I'll have to edit out this whole argument to end it (which had valid points on both sides).
 
I believe that all drugs should be legal, and that government interference should be next to none. That being said, drugs are not legal. Because of this, if only to attempt to correct the spread of AIDS caused partially by the difficulties inherent with shooting up illegal drugs, I believe the government should step in and provide these centers.

If drugs are legalized, and a weeks worth of herion and needles is readily available for under $20, (which it probably would be) than there would be no need for government interference other than to license people whos job would be to safely shoot people up.

This is a healthcare issue. As much as I hate to have any government involved in heathcare, if gov. is the cause of the problem than gov. should be part of the solution. There is no more reason for a herion addict to get aids than there is for me to go blind from drinking methanol.

As far as U.S. actions causing a glut of herion to be produced in Afhganistan which in turn is devestating the lives of users, what kind of argument is that?....there will always be opiates. Some will be cut, some will be pharma. If heroin was legal, like it has been in the past, roughly the same amount of people would use it. If heroin is wiped off the face fo the earth, OCs....

There will always be a substitute. Quaaludes are gone, but Xanax is rampant...
 
Kkool said:
Let's think of best country in a different way: if we wanted to, we could wipe your planet off the face of the earth and not break a sweat.


Kkool said:
Nice, pick on my choice of words which was obviously a careless mistake, you sure showed me.

Maybe Sgt. Stadanko was pointing out a Freudian Slip? Symptomatic of paranoia with delusions of grandeur perhaps?

You do have the capacity to wipe the planet of the face of the universe. That's why the rest of the 'known' world are kinda nervous about US. We know you are very proud of that capability. It would be nice if you didn't respond to factual criticism with accusions of 'hate', and that you weren't so arrogant that you feel good in the fact that you could annihilate any other terrestrial entities should you feel it necessary and just.

E

[Sorry Mods - you'll probably give me a warning for this, but can't resist. This guy has a seriously narrow view of health promotion/harm reduction. Need to get my frustration out somehow =D ]
 
^Dude stop being 12 yrs old, grow some balls and learn to think.

Anyone who believes in harm minimisation would realise that by shutting down this injection site that we're all a little worse off. You can argue all day about 'what encourages drugs' or 'what tax dollars should be spent on' but at the end of it all nothings changed unless some new ideas are embraced and acted upon. Sadly only mature minds and societies can graple with this fact.. I hope BC will come around soon..
 
kong said:
As far as U.S. actions causing a glut of herion to be produced in Afhganistan which in turn is devestating the lives of users, what kind of argument is that?....there will always be opiates. Some will be cut, some will be pharma. If heroin was legal, like it has been in the past, roughly the same amount of people would use it. If heroin is wiped off the face fo the earth, OCs....

There will always be a substitute. Quaaludes are gone, but Xanax is rampant...

Isn't that the same as saying 'Oh don't worry about Hitler, there's always gonna be some kind of fascist dictator so we may aswell appease him for a while, let him take over Czechoslovakia etc.'?

Hate to commit reductio ad hitlerum, but it's the only analogy I could think of at the present moment. Demographics have nothing to do with it.. as long as cut heroin gets into the hands of people, injecting unsupervised, then there's always greater health implications.

If the government taxed legit heroin then they'd be able to pay for health initiatives, instead of bombs.
 
Sgt. Stadanko said:
Ahh jesus christ man, there's a profound difference between ILLICIT heroin and pharmaceutical heroin. This is elementary stuff, and we've been through it before in a thread concerning the legalization of heroin in my country (UK).

Illegally produced heroin as we all know is liable to being stepped on with all sorts of shit. Hell, a dealer can get rid of an unwanted customer by selling them heroin of substantial purity or mixing it with fentanyl.

If it was legit then there would be a clean supply of heroin produced in proper laboratory conditions within the constraints of the FDA, WHO etc.

Cartels won't be able to fund terrorist activities with money obtained from the trafficking of drugs.. I don't know how you can say I advocate the war on drugs from what I've been saying.


No personal attacks!

This is besides the point. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States did bring about a flood of street grade heroin, but the presence of pharmaceutical grade heroin is not affected by a war into an opium producing country. The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with pharmaceutical heroin.

Such pharmacy grade heroin would only be available if drugs were legal, which is not the point of this thread. I already said making all drugs legal would take away many of the dangers associated with the black market for drugs, including impurities and violence. However, this thread is not about legalization. I already said that I believe in the legalization of all drugs, including heroin.

Maybe Sgt. Stadanko was pointing out a Freudian Slip? Symptomatic of paranoia with delusions of grandeur perhaps?

You do have the capacity to wipe the planet of the face of the universe. That's why the rest of the 'known' world are kinda nervous about US. We know you are very proud of that capability. It would be nice if you didn't respond to factual criticism with accusions of 'hate', and that you weren't so arrogant that you feel good in the fact that you could annihilate any other terrestrial entities should you feel it necessary and just.

No, haha, I am actually very fond of other countries, almost to the point of awe; I just felt it necessary to defend my own against silly and unfounded attacks. I only took the "criticisms" personally because they weren't valid criticisms, only statements made to rile my anger and to promote anti-US sentiment.

I believe that all drugs should be legal, and that government interference should be next to none. That being said, drugs are not legal. Because of this, if only to attempt to correct the spread of AIDS caused partially by the difficulties inherent with shooting up illegal drugs, I believe the government should step in and provide these centers.

If drugs are legalized, and a weeks worth of herion and needles is readily available for under $20, (which it probably would be) than there would be no need for government interference other than to license people whos job would be to safely shoot people up.

This is a healthcare issue. As much as I hate to have any government involved in heathcare, if gov. is the cause of the problem than gov. should be part of the solution. There is no more reason for a herion addict to get aids than there is for me to go blind from drinking methanol.

As far as U.S. actions causing a glut of herion to be produced in Afhganistan which in turn is devestating the lives of users, what kind of argument is that?....there will always be opiates. Some will be cut, some will be pharma. If heroin was legal, like it has been in the past, roughly the same amount of people would use it. If heroin is wiped off the face fo the earth, OCs....

There will always be a substitute. Quaaludes are gone, but Xanax is rampant...

This is one of the more reasonable and thought out opinions in this thread. Like I said, I think these clinics are a good idea, but in countries like the US, they are not practical to be funded by the government. Countries that have national health care, like Canada, would be a more appropriate habitat for these kind of programs.

Isn't that the same as saying 'Oh don't worry about Hitler, there's always gonna be some kind of fascist dictator so we may aswell appease him for a while, let him take over Czechoslovakia etc.'?

Hate to commit reductio ad hitlerum, but it's the only analogy I could think of at the present moment. Demographics have nothing to do with it.. as long as cut heroin gets into the hands of people, injecting unsupervised, then there's always greater health implications.

If the government taxed legit heroin then they'd be able to pay for health initiatives, instead of bombs.

No, to put it bluntly, it isn't the same. Reductio arguments are inherently weak in nature, in this case because Hitler is not similar to heroin in any way.

I think what he was trying to say was that, unlike in the case of Hitler, a great demand exists for heroin and opiate-like drugs. As long as this great demand exists, people will continue to try and circumvent any measure we take to stop it. This is why the war on drugs isn't working so well.
 
Last edited:
LMFAO!!!

"LOL, you know, there's a reason the United States is regarded as the best country in the world, regardless of our military initiatives. You are just talking out of hate and ignorance, probably jealousy as well."

I'm sorry, I wiped tears from my eyes for like 15 minutes after reading that. Thanks man, you really brightened my day. I didn't even read the whole post.. i saw that and had to reply. hahahaha, I frequently have conversations that involve use of phrases like "fuck man, There is no amount of money in the world that would have me move to the states for even a year. No amount. I couldn't do it." But I see the propaganda works well. Our government doesn't need to deceive us, nor is there really any pro-canadian smears like you have. Hell, I I only know the first two lines of our national anthem. That's how little its drilled into us. We love our country because we want to, not because we're brainwashed. Look who leads you. Look who leads you and tell me you're still proud. Your country not only voted for that douschebag once, but TWICE. ANNNND, he's a republican for fucks sake. How stupid can you get?
 
benze said:
LMFAO!!!

"LOL, you know, there's a reason the United States is regarded as the best country in the world, regardless of our military initiatives. You are just talking out of hate and ignorance, probably jealousy as well."

I'm sorry, I wiped tears from my eyes for like 15 minutes after reading that. Thanks man, you really brightened my day. I didn't even read the whole post.. i saw that and had to reply. hahahaha, I frequently have conversations that involve use of phrases like "fuck man, There is no amount of money in the world that would have me move to the states for even a year. No amount. I couldn't do it." But I see the propaganda works well. Our government doesn't need to deceive us, nor is there really any pro-canadian smears like you have. Hell, I I only know the first two lines of our national anthem. That's how little its drilled into us. We love our country because we want to, not because we're brainwashed. Look who leads you. Look who leads you and tell me you're still proud. Your country not only voted for that douschebag once, but TWICE. ANNNND, he's a republican for fucks sake. How stupid can you get?

Nice, didn't even read the thread, just came to say things like this. And the mods warned ME twice? Sweet.

For your information, I love my country not because George W. Bush tells me to, but because of my experience of living in it.

Please, LOL, the ONLY fun place in Canada is Montreal, your country is like a giant glacier. You're making your country look real swell by the way! If everyone else is like you, I'll be sure to steer clear next time I get anywhere near the border.
 
Kkool said:
Oh, I like the US bashing. Let me rephrase, I don't want my money spent on drug users, and a majority of the known world agrees with me.

Should money be spent on public education? Like high schools, colleges, etc?
 
This thread just got wasted between a few people clarifying things they already said.


Harm reduction programs don't equate to public schools, harm reduction is an attempt to achieve a safe environment for those who use drugs anyway. It's a way to counter for the ridiculous government policies that make drugs illegal without any useful information to suggest that it helps.

In the absence of those ridiculous drug laws, most harm reduction programs would not be necessary.

Nothing is black or white, no one is all good or all bad including the government of any country, but as long as a few small groups push stupid laws on everyone without real results, there should be other groups pushing back to try and equalize things, and thats what harm reduction can do.
 
n4k33n said:
Should money be spent on public education? Like high schools, colleges, etc?

I'm not a hardcore libertarian, if that's what you mean. Yes, I still think things like public schools are a good idea.
 
TheTripDoctor said:
This thread just got wasted between a few people clarifying things they already said.

Agreed


In the absence of those ridiculous drug laws, most harm reduction programs would not be necessary.

Agreed x2 !

Excellent comments ! ;)
 
Top