Does harm reduction appeal to the masses?

[thujone]

the equivalence to alcohol is hard to sell because it is possible to just casually have a drink or two and not be addicted.

and society does try to curtail harmful behaviours related to alcohol, like drunk driving.

OTOH, it's much harder to casually dabble in meth or IV opiates and still lead a well-adjusted life.

I just think that by not delineating between something like Naloxone and something like a meth bulb, it fuzzes the data because you're combining something that has a clear impact to something that may not do a great deal more than continue to enable harmful use.

 

[deficiT]

the equivalence to alcohol is hard to sell because it is possible to just casually have a drink or two and not be addicted.

and society does try to curtail harmful behaviours related to alcohol, like drunk driving.

OTOH, it's much harder to casually dabble in meth or IV opiates and still lead a well-adjusted life.

I just think that by not delineating between something like Naloxone and something like a meth bulb, it fuzzes the data because you're combining something that has a clear impact to something that may not do a great deal more than continue to enable harmful use.

It's perfectly possible to use meth or opioids or other hard drugs in a moderate manner like alcohol.

So yeah if we try to reduce the harm of alcohol I see no issue with giving people safe access. People are dying en masse because the drug supply is tainted.

The old ways aren't working.

There should be Dexedrine/Adderall maintenance medicine for methamphetamine addicts imo.

 

[thujone]

There should be Dexedrine/Adderall maintenance medicine for methamphetamine addicts imo.

agreed, but it at least should be offered as part of treatment. handing out pipes and needles is too laissez-faire to sit right with me. how is anyone supposed to measure if the impact of it is net positive or net negative when nobody is tracking where they end up?

supervised injection sites is a solution that addresses that, but it also needs buy-in from society because someone has to foot the bill and they also have to be as common as starbucks because who is going to use one that's too far?

 

[brokedownpalace10]

In America both political parties, one way more than the other, use fear to get votes. Drug users are a handy tool to use in this tactic.
So, no, harm reduction isn't even considered much by the rubes. If it ever is, someone political will say, "So and so wants to legalize drugs."

It is starting to actually be considered by some now that we have mass deaths due to Fentanyl. It will take that kind of carnage continuing for harm reduction to catch on, though.
Biggest difference now is that kind of thing hitting all socio-economic classes and races now. Most everyone knows someone with an addict in the family and often an OD.
Makes it harder to "other" druggies.

 

[polarthedog]

Naloxone and Good Samaritan provisions seem like good ideas but then we get to distributing meth bulbs and needles and it's like hol up... so now society is actively helping people use?

Why is it that perverse incentives proliferate whenever the government gets involved in anything?

If they don’t distribute things like that, people will always find a different way to keep using, even if that’s means shooting up with a month old rig that twenty other people have used before, drawing up rain water from a puddle to do so. If you just give them clean rigs, they’ll Ben much better off.

Also, I don’t really think using is such a bad thing, Andy I for one find I am happier addicted to drugs than sober since the drugs seem to Ben the only thing capable of relieving my mental issues, and I can’t seem to control my use, it’s either use every day and get high regularly, or stay completely sober, not even drinking coffee.

Yes, I would be better off if I was given an unlimited safe affordable supply of drugs, which the us government could actually probably afford to provide for all drug addicts who are in a situation like mine.

So ya, I think the government should help some people get high, provided they try to contribute back to society, otherwise it would Be unsustainable

We have a constitutional right to pursue happiness, if you need drugs to Ben happy, then you should have an unalienable right to use and pursue them, provided you don’t cause harm to others in your pursuit

 

[polarthedog]

I would say no, most people are largely ignorant to harm reduction, and they are content staying like that, honestly, I think the drug war is on par with slavery in terms of how much damage it has caused to peoples lives. Course that would probably be impossible to measure or prove lol. I think they should have a drug addiction lives matter week or something.

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Harm reduction I fear might become a thing one gloomy day is vaccination against broad spectre of drugs. PREVENT YOUR KIDS AND SPOUSE FROM BECOMING AN ADDICT, only 99¢ per shot and a free lunch at BurgerKing for your whole fucking clean family!

 

[tokayeahok]

Honestly, I don't think a majority of people "get" it. Many, many people think basic harm reduction things like needle exchanges are enabling users. You can break out all the charts, the info about disease transmission, and everything and they will still give you a glazed over dumb look.

yeah down here in southern US, most people just think clinics, needle exchange, test kits etc are just further enabling addicts. sucks

 

[G_Chem]

the equivalence to alcohol is hard to sell because it is possible to just casually have a drink or two and not be addicted.

and society does try to curtail harmful behaviours related to alcohol, like drunk driving.

OTOH, it's much harder to casually dabble in meth or IV opiates and still lead a well-adjusted life.

I just think that by not delineating between something like Naloxone and something like a meth bulb, it fuzzes the data because you're combining something that has a clear impact to something that may not do a great deal more than continue to enable harmful use.

I use meth only 2-4 times year if that. Been using it that way since I first tried it back in 2017. To me it’s like a more hedonistic version of Amphetamine.

While I agree, meth definitely can catch people easier than alcohol. I wonder if that’s simply a result of lack of education about the drug.

To be fair, I know quite a number of people that have tried meth but alcohol is their main problem drug. In my area, meth was demonized to the point where we all tread very cautiously.

I get what you guys are saying though, and like most things in life the answer to this is balance. We don’t need to be locking people away but we also don’t need to be handing drugs out either.

The problem as always, is the answer is too nuanced and more importantly expensive than people want to deal with.

-GC

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

whatever man

tweekers dont need adderall....drink coffee - or how about this - eat healthy and try to sleep - maybe then you'll feel like you have more energy

 

[brokedownpalace10]

the equivalence to alcohol is hard to sell because it is possible to just casually have a drink or two and not be addicted.

and society does try to curtail harmful behaviours related to alcohol, like drunk driving.

OTOH, it's much harder to casually dabble in meth or IV opiates and still lead a well-adjusted life.

I just think that by not delineating between something like Naloxone and something like a meth bulb, it fuzzes the data because you're combining something that has a clear impact to something that may not do a great deal more than continue to enable harmful use.

I used to know many people who did meth occasionally. You're right though, meth is likely easier to fall into than booze. However, of the people I know who drink on a regular basis, a lot of them drink to the point of a problem. Alcohol is not a benign drug at all.

You only hear about the people who have problems. Casual users don't make the news as to illegal drugs.

 

[thujone]

true, alcohol is not benign. i think that overexposure is mainly the problem in our society - wherever there's money to be made, things trend towards maximizing profit at the expense of human welfare.

because of that, i'm not sure i would be pro-legalization if alcohol had been illegal and the question were should we legalize that now. even with guardrails, alcoholism has been normalized by society and it's just a given that drinking happens at any social event.

that said, i don't think i've ever heard of HR advocacy for alcohol abuse and AFAIK all approaches to alcohol abuse are geared towards discouraging drinking altogether.

the risk of handing out paraphernalia is that it sends the message that there's a safer way to keep abusing drugs, and that message implies that the primary danger of drug abuses is not the drugs themselves but rather the criminalization of it leading to marginalized people engaging in risky behaviours.

that may be true, but it's also true that along with greater acceptance of HR we're also seeing rising vagrancy, mental health crises, petty crime and random violence, and that the public is getting fed up with the feeling of living in an open air asylum.

is the HR approach working? it's hard to say if it's hard to quantify, and it's hard to quantify when the attitude is "no questions asked", and of course it's hard to enforce asking questions if the whole approach is dependent on it being a voluntary thing.

so, because of that, i think ceasing the distribution of paraphernalia makes sense - firstly, because HR advocates aren't even sure of exactly how effective it is, and second, because it's harder to convince the public that HR is having a positive impact when they see someone passed out on the sidewalk, possibly OD'd, with a shiny new needle in their arm that came from an HR advocate.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Hmm. Yeah. I can definitely see examining various aspects of harm reduction and seeing... if they reduce harm.

A main point of many harm reduction strategies is reducing the harm to society as well as the harm to the addict. Legalizing softer drugs to deny the money to the cartels as well as having a safer product for the consumer as an example.
Supplying paraphernalia is just reduction of harm to the addict only now that I think of it.

Myself, I would still support it but would also try other strategies to address the harm to society you mentioned. But that's me.
I do have to see your point.



Drinking and driving awareness and disseminated info as to "safe" units of alcohol consumed in a day would be a couple harm reduction strategies regarding alcohol, off the top of my head.

 

[Foreigner]

I think very few people take HR seriously, including the ones who claim to be proponents. They usually advocate for single approaches instead of a comprehensive systemic approach. For example, in BC they decriminalized small possession of all drugs, and now we have an epidemic of people smoking crack right out in the open at bus shelters and other busy areas. No enforcement. No room on the waiting list for people seeking recovery services. No new money being put into rehab. It's a fucking disaster. Addiction is skyrocketing now but there are no new services to help people.

HR only really works if we do it the way that Portugal did it. They got it right. The West Coast of North America decriminalizing drugs and then just leaving addicts to their own devices is going to be one of the worst policy decisions in recent history. It may reduce the number of people ending up in prison, but the streets are going to be full of aimless addicts, especially given how bad the housing crisis is. Exhibit A: San Francisco.

They need to reopen mental health institutions ASAP and put these people in there, especially when they commit violent crimes in the name of drugs.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I think very few people take HR seriously, including the ones who claim to be proponents. They usually advocate for single approaches instead of a comprehensive systemic approach. For example, in BC they decriminalized small possession of all drugs, and now we have an epidemic of people smoking crack right out in the open at bus shelters and other busy areas. No enforcement. No room on the waiting list for people seeking recovery services. No new money being put into rehab. It's a fucking disaster. Addiction is skyrocketing now but there are no new services to help people.

HR only really works if we do it the way that Portugal did it. They got it right. The West Coast of North America decriminalizing drugs and then just leaving addicts to their own devices is going to be one of the worst policy decisions in recent history. It may reduce the number of people ending up in prison, but the streets are going to be full of aimless addicts, especially given how bad the housing crisis is. Exhibit A: San Francisco.

They need to reopen mental health institutions ASAP and put these people in there, especially when they commit violent crimes in the name of drugs.

How did Portugal do it?

Public drug use = bad is a common thread here.
People being homeless aside and kinda off topic as well, I'm seeing people smoke pot in public way more now.
Since it has lost a lot of the stigma, I see people in front of stores I frequent and other public places smoking. I even know some of those people.

This is causing a big counter reaction amongst the rubes, they don't want to smell it. They have a right to that.

Let's be responsible druggies and try to get our highs out of sight and out of smell range or we will end up with an oppressive counter reaction.

 

[Foreigner]

How did Portugal do it?

Public drug use = bad is a common thread here.
People being homeless aside and kinda off topic as well, I'm seeing people smoke pot in public way more now.
Since it has lost a lot of the stigma, I see people in front of stores I frequent and other public places smoking. I even know some of those people.

This is causing a big counter reaction amongst the rubes, they don't want to smell it. They have a right to that.

Let's be responsible druggies and try to get our highs out of sight and out of smell range or we will end up with an oppressive counter reaction.

Not all drugs are equal. People smoking pot are not engaging in self-destruction. But people smoking meth and crack are. It's not just about smelling it, it's about seeing people who are destroying themselves openly in public. Needles hanging out of their arms, etc. Hunched over frozen in place while standing up from tranq or whatever the fuck. This isn't normal and society should not tolerate it.

The left-wing view is that it SHOULD be out in the open so that society can't hide from the harms that are happening. My counter argument to that is that the average person can't do shit to help these people. They aren't qualified or don't have the "trenches" personality type to deal with it. There are people ODing in the streets now. I'm not exaggerating. This week the ambulance was called twice on my street because of homeless people shooting up in the open.

If they want to go to shooting galleries that's their business but I don't want to see normal streets becoming shooting galleries, or places for crack and meth to be smoked in the open. But the cops won't do anything about it now. Vancouver is looking like a dumpster fire these days.

 

[polarthedog]

Not all drugs are equal. People smoking pot are not engaging in self-destruction. But people smoking meth and crack are. It's not just about smelling it, it's about seeing people who are destroying themselves openly in public. Needles hanging out of their arms, etc. Hunched over frozen in place while standing up from tranq or whatever the fuck. This isn't normal and society should not tolerate it.

The left-wing view is that it SHOULD be out in the open so that society can't hide from the harms that are happening. My counter argument to that is that the average person can't do shit to help these people. They aren't qualified or don't have the "trenches" personality type to deal with it. There are people ODing in the streets now. I'm not exaggerating. This week the ambulance was called twice on my street because of homeless people shooting up in the open.

If they want to go to shooting galleries that's their business but I don't want to see normal streets becoming shooting galleries, or places for crack and meth to be smoked in the open. But the cops won't do anything about it now. Vancouver is looking like a dumpster fire these days.

But what actual harm are they causing anyone by dying in public or shooting up ona park bench? Sure, maybe you don’t want to see it, but maybe that’s your problem, maybe you should just learn to tolerate other people s lifestyles. Personally if I found someone passed out with a needle in their arm in public where I live, so long as they weren’t like oding or trying to rob me, I wouldn’t care, wouldn’t bother me one bit.

Why does it bother you?

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Not all drugs are equal. People smoking pot are not engaging in self-destruction. But people smoking meth and crack are. It's not just about smelling it, it's about seeing people who are destroying themselves openly in public. Needles hanging out of their arms, etc. Hunched over frozen in place while standing up from tranq or whatever the fuck. This isn't normal and society should not tolerate it.

The left-wing view is that it SHOULD be out in the open so that society can't hide from the harms that are happening. My counter argument to that is that the average person can't do shit to help these people. They aren't qualified or don't have the "trenches" personality type to deal with it. There are people ODing in the streets now. I'm not exaggerating. This week the ambulance was called twice on my street because of homeless people shooting up in the open.

If they want to go to shooting galleries that's their business but I don't want to see normal streets becoming shooting galleries, or places for crack and meth to be smoked in the open. But the cops won't do anything about it now. Vancouver is looking like a dumpster fire these days.

Benu did mention one thing that I forgot. Needle programs originally started to prevent the spread of HIV. Since that can be also spread by other means, it is true harm reduction in that it protects people other than the user.

I did say that I was off topic on the marijuana smoke. However, since my point was that it causes a public counter reaction, your post just neatly proved my point.

Drugs aside, the problem of homelessness is everybody's problem and if often not the fault of the homeless person.

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Drugs aside, the problem of homelessness is everybody's problem and if often not the fault of the homeless person.

And not to mention that homelessness at least to some (I guess quite big) extent increase drug abuse and vice versa.

 

[Foreigner]

Benu did mention one thing that I forgot. Needle programs originally started to prevent the spread of HIV. Since that can be also spread by other means, it is true harm reduction in that it protects people other than the user.

I did say that I was off topic on the marijuana smoke. However, since my point was that it causes a public counter reaction, your post just neatly proved my point.

Drugs aside, the problem of homelessness is everybody's problem and if often not the fault of the homeless person.

How is it my problem if I am not in a position to stop it?