News Biden Quietly Making Radical Shift in Opioid Policy [US]

deficiT

deficiT

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
25,423
Biden quietly making radical shift in opioid policy

Thomas F. Harrison
Tucson Sentinel
20 Sep 2022

Excerpt:
In dealing with the opioid crisis, the Biden administration is quietly embracing “harm reduction” — a controversial approach that could save thousands of lives but create a political firestorm because it appears to be giving up and accepting illegal drug use as normal.

Harm reduction is a blanket term for interventions that are designed not to stop people from using drugs but simply to reduce their negative effects, including supervised injection sites, syringe exchanges, safe smoking kits, fentanyl test strips and the widespread availability of Narcan, a drug that reverses overdoses.

Although it makes little effort to trumpet it, “the Biden administration has made harm reduction the centerpiece of its effort to address the opioid crisis,” said Andrew Kolodny, who chairs the psychiatry department at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City.

David Herzberg, a historian of drug policy at the University of Buffalo, said Biden is making “deep and fundamental changes to a bedrock element of American policing culture that has been around for over a century.

"It’s amazing. As a historian you almost never get to say that something is brand new. But this is new,” he said.

But it’s “a drastic change in position,” according to 14 Republican U.S. senators who complained about it in a letter to the president. Harm reduction is “radicalized, illegal, and dangerous,” they claimed, adding that “the grave consequences of enabling and normalizing the consumption of illicit drugs” include “an increase in crime, discarded needles, and social disorder in the surrounding neighborhoods.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deficiT said:
But it’s “a drastic change in position,” according to 14 Republican U.S. senators who complained about it in a letter to the president. Harm reduction is “radicalized, illegal, and dangerous,” they claimed, adding that “the grave consequences of enabling and normalizing the consumption of illicit drugs” include “an increase in crime, discarded needles, and social disorder in the surrounding neighborhoods.”
Click to expand...

I hope he wrote back to them and told em to cram that letter straight up their collective asshole, because that's where something so full of shit deserves to be
 
I absolutely HATE this "it's enabling drug use" argument. It's bollocks. As a long-time user I can safely say that when I'm hell-bent on scoring some drugs, I can 'enable' myself JUST FINE.

Pretty much everyone who wants drugs enough to not be deterred by the illegal aspect is taking drugs already regardless. Whilst those for whom drugs hold no attraction are not going to turn into druggies even if they were declared legal. I'd love to ask these staunch anti-drug politicians whether they think THEY'RE gonna suddenly run out, buy some needles and shoot up some cocaine or something when this had never remotely occurred to them before, just because there's a safe site that's newly opened up. Because that's essentially how they argue and it is moronic. The risks and dangers have never put off serious users ; these facilities just stop you from unnecessarily dying. As someone whose life was literally saved TWICE by a safe injection site I feel very passionately about this.
 
Case in point, recorded drug deaths in the state of Bavaria, with a zero-tolerance, no safe sites, conservative regional government : 1,826 in the last year.
The same statistic for Northrhine-Westphalia (my home province ), which allows for a more progressive drug policy and approves safe sites, for the same year: 693.
 
e “an increase in crime, discarded needles
Click to expand...

Also when a drug user/addict is treated with respect I feel they are going to treat society with much more respect. This should eventually lead to significantly less needles being discarded haphazardly and less crime because they are no longer criminals.

I feel people can have a strong tendency to break social expectations from societies that demonize and persecute them.
 
Last edited:
neversickanymore said:
Also when a drug user/addict is treated with respect I feel they are going to treat society with much more respect. This should eventually lead to significantly less needles being discarded haphazardly and less crime because they are no longer criminals.
Click to expand...
This assumes they are functioning humans without mental illness.
In Canada a lot of the homeless addicts are untreated mentally ill people, because our governments thought mental asylums were abusive and expensive, so now those people roam the streets self medicating on meth and opiates, and some of them when you treat them with kindness and respect they cut someones head off on a greyhound bus.
Until our government can differentiate and address the population of people who need help, respect and kindness is merely enabling self destructive behaviour that is harmful to society at large.
 
assclass said:
This assumes they are functioning humans without mental illness.
In Canada a lot of the homeless addicts are untreated mentally ill people, because our governments thought mental asylums were abusive and expensive, so now those people roam the streets self medicating on meth and opiates, and some of them when you treat them with kindness and respect they cut someones head off on a greyhound bus.
Until our government can differentiate and address the population of people who need help, respect and kindness is merely enabling self destructive behaviour that is harmful to society at large.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Thats represents a mental health challenge. Idk what to do about that, but taking a harm reduction approach to drug use and addiction won't make that situation worse and should make the overall situation better if not significantly better.
 
If somebody is a danger to others and/or themselves, then they should be sectioned. That applies in any case, whether complicated by drug use or not. This also doesn't mean you can't extend basic good manners to people who visit safe sites.

There's a lot of people who do not get the help they need either with mental or physical health because they've come to think of themselves as pieces of shit who don't deserve anything. A dose of just treating someone like a fellow human being (so long as they're in a state to appreciate it) can work wonders for someone's self-esteem and willingness to better their situation sometimes. I've experienced this myself.
 
Last edited:
neversickanymore said:
Fair point. Thats represents a mental health challenge. Idk what to do about that, but taking a harm reduction approach to drug use and addiction won't make that situation worse and should make the overall situation better if not significantly better.
Click to expand...
If you do drugs and overdose on a regular basis (lets exaggerate and say everyday) and because of your overdose recovery health care the hospital doesn't have the resources to help other people, at what point do we consider that perhaps resources are not infinite and people cannot monopolize them?
I don't think that we shouldn't care for people that have made a single mistake, but on a collective basis, at least in my community our normal healthcare system is literally shutting down because there isn't enough resources to keep the ER staffed and operational... but we have the resources for special clinics for people to consume drugs etc.
Rather than ensure the ER is operational the local health authority is making sure that marginalized homeless addicts have access to healthcare, when normal families are without doctors and have to travel hours to get to an ER that is open. And yet addicts are still left with an unsafe drug supply, because no one wants to prescribe oxy anymore. I don't think the people writing the cheques want to help, it's just a way to steal from taxpayers and donors.

I want to help people by treating the root issues, but it seems like there is a big push for lots of spending on bandaids.
 
assclass said:
If you do drugs and overdose on a regular basis (lets exaggerate and say everyday) and because of your overdose recovery health care the hospital doesn't have the resources to help other people, at what point do we consider that perhaps resources are not infinite and people cannot monopolize them?
I don't think that we shouldn't care for people that have made a single mistake, but on a collective basis, at least in my community our normal healthcare system is literally shutting down because there isn't enough resources to keep the ER staffed and operational... but we have the resources for special clinics for people to consume drugs etc.
Rather than ensure the ER is operational the local health authority is making sure that marginalized homeless addicts have access to healthcare, when normal families are without doctors and have to travel hours to get to an ER that is open. And yet addicts are still left with an unsafe drug supply, because no one wants to prescribe oxy anymore. I don't think the people writing the cheques want to help, it's just a way to steal from taxpayers and donors.

I want to help people by treating the root issues, but it seems like there is a big push for lots of spending on bandaids.
Click to expand...
Where are you at generally?

Support for narcan should reduce the strain on hospitals.

What do you feel the root issues are?

What about the elderly and obese.. they monopolize the health care system?

What do your objections have to do with the Administration giving 300 million to Harm Reduction?
 
Last edited:
neversickanymore said:
Where are you at generally?

Support for narcan should reduce the strain on hospitals.

What do you feel the root issues are?

What about the elderly and obese.. they monopolize the health care system?

What do your objections have to do with the Administration giving 300 million to Harm Reduction?
Click to expand...
I live near Toronto.

Narcan is everywhere here for free.

Root issues are a nexus of homelessness, mental health, and drugs(being illegal, being an unsafe supply because its illegal, lack of access to rehab, etc).

Elderly and obese people do take disproportionate levels of healthcare. Here we encourage assisted suicide for the elderly. But getting old isn't a choice, drugs and being obese are lifestyle choices. We also don't give healthcare to obese people in certain situations, like if they need a heart transplant, they need to get in shape first. But yes, we should focus on preventative care, not just rely on constant emergency care. It would be nice if doctors would help people exercise and eat right, but prescribing statins for heart issues is fast, easy and profitable.
Is $300 million going to make a difference on the grand scheme of things, or is a drop in the bucket? Is $300 million for harm reduction needed, or would it be better spent on setting up and repairing the foundations of society, instead of spending it on narcan for harm reduction?
Would that money be better spent on housing, mental health and ensuring that people have hopeful lives? How much does it cost to change the laws and let pharmacies doll out oxycontin, fentanyl, meth and cocaine to people, instead of empower drug cartels?
When I was in Vancouver I got the feeling that the non-profits and government don't want to solve the problem, they want to control the industry and are happy to let the statistics of drugs, death and abuse of addicts.
 
assclass said:
I live near Toronto.

Narcan is everywhere here for free.

Root issues are a nexus of homelessness, mental health, and drugs(being illegal, being an unsafe supply because its illegal, lack of access to rehab, etc).

Elderly and obese people do take disproportionate levels of healthcare. Here we encourage assisted suicide for the elderly. But getting old isn't a choice, drugs and being obese are lifestyle choices. We also don't give healthcare to obese people in certain situations, like if they need a heart transplant, they need to get in shape first. But yes, we should focus on preventative care, not just rely on constant emergency care. It would be nice if doctors would help people exercise and eat right, but prescribing statins for heart issues is fast, easy and profitable.
Is $300 million going to make a difference on the grand scheme of things, or is a drop in the bucket? Is $300 million for harm reduction needed, or would it be better spent on setting up and repairing the foundations of society, instead of spending it on narcan for harm reduction?
Would that money be better spent on housing, mental health and ensuring that people have hopeful lives? How much does it cost to change the laws and let pharmacies doll out oxycontin, fentanyl, meth and cocaine to people, instead of empower drug cartels?
When I was in Vancouver I got the feeling that the non-profits and government don't want to solve the problem, they want to control the industry and are happy to let the statistics of drugs, death and abuse of addicts.
Click to expand...
I think the 300 will do well.

Actually, I just recently noticed that a person or two currently at the reins of some harm reduction groups have 6 degrees including a phd in GA.. grant acquisition. I wonder if they have even been drunk more than two times. Seems like quite a few academics.. good at grants and reports. We need money; we will see how they do on the streets and if they can get the policies and laws changed, but this is an indication that we have a chance at some significant change.

People have the choice to live healthier lifestyles and its their responsibility to do this if they want.

over the years my mind goes back and forth on free market drugs.. currently I believe that a license, similar to a drivers license that would allow a licensed consumer to obtain a reasonable amount of their substances per week from a pharmacy may be the best option. Their are problems with every approach though.
 
Last edited:
assclass said:
If you do drugs and overdose on a regular basis (lets exaggerate and say everyday) and because of your overdose recovery health care the hospital doesn't have the resources to help other people, at what point do we consider that perhaps resources are not infinite and people cannot monopolize them?
I don't think that we shouldn't care for people that have made a single mistake, but on a collective basis, at least in my community our normal healthcare system is literally shutting down because there isn't enough resources to keep the ER staffed and operational... but we have the resources for special clinics for people to consume drugs etc.
Rather than ensure the ER is operational the local health authority is making sure that marginalized homeless addicts have access to healthcare, when normal families are without doctors and have to travel hours to get to an ER that is open. And yet addicts are still left with an unsafe drug supply, because no one wants to prescribe oxy anymore. I don't think the people writing the cheques want to help, it's just a way to steal from taxpayers and donors.

I want to help people by treating the root issues, but it seems like there is a big push for lots of spending on bandaids.
Click to expand...
I broadly agree. The greater trouble is that a) mental health care provision is pathetic b) housing is insufficient and landlords in some places can arbitrarily evict tenants at short notice and for inadequate reasons and c) prohibition makes drug use 10 x more dangerous and damaging than it needs to be.

So yes safe injection sites and needle exchanges and other HR measures are band aids because no political will exists to solve the underlying issues. That said I support them as the best that's available right now.

PS yes somebody who is so reckless as to overdose constantly shouldn't be prioritised over anyone else when it comes to emergency care, the same as someone with liver cancer should top the transplant list over someone who has given himself cirrhosis through drinking.
 
neversickanymore said:
People have the choice to live healthier lifestyles and its their responsibility to do this if they want.
Click to expand...
People have the ability to live their lives as they see fit. But that doesn't mean others need to support, accept or most importantly fund those lifestyles.
If that is the case, I am happy to let the government fund my cannabis and LSD consumption in a state of robotic luxury. Right?
 
TheUltimateFixx said:
I broadly agree. The greater trouble is that a) mental health care provision is pathetic b) housing is insufficient and landlords in some places can arbitrarily evict tenants at short notice and for inadequate reasons and c) prohibition makes drug use 10 x more dangerous and damaging than it needs to be.

So yes safe injection sites and needle exchanges and other HR measures are band aids because no political will exists to solve the underlying issues. That said I support them as the best that's available right now.

PS yes somebody who is so reckless as to overdose constantly shouldn't be prioritised over anyone else when it comes to emergency care, the same as someone with liver cancer should top the transplant list over someone who has given himself cirrhosis through drinking.
Click to expand...
A) provisioning of mental healthcare needs to be a priority.
B) build more housing and ensure that there is affordable housing
C) drugs should be legal, and anyone who needs painkillers should have access to them. Recreational drugs should be legal, but slightly controlled through a pharmacy that makes sure you aren't doing enough coke to deviate your septum, and recreational drugs should be expensive. Cocaine should be a treat for a party kind of thing.

I want the band aids to control the bleeding, but we need to have a plan to treat the infected wound ASAP. Essentially we have failed to triage the issue. I just don't want only bandaids, because that is just a way for bandaid dealers to scam the taxpayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top