Norway to decriminalize heroin smoking

how is trading IVing heroin everyday for smoking heroin every day solving anything?

let's take a look at what still hasnt changed.

Before the law
heroin everyday
Click to expand...

and after the law

heroin everyday
Click to expand...

Don't try to tell me I don't know what I am talking about either glitter_kiss, I don't judge anyone for using anything. I just don't see how this really helps or hurts the situation.
 
rangrz said:
I'm loling...all the love on the BL for legalization of cannabis, but hating on Norway for legalizing a different drug. I guess drug users (or maybe just potheads) are just as much of hypocrites as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't see anybody hating on Norway. I see people pointing out some issues with the premise that legalizing smoking will curtail deaths due to injection. I am not quite sure what you're reading.
 
shimazu said:
how is trading IVing heroin everyday for smoking heroin every day solving anything?
Click to expand...

Well, if you read the actual article, they state the thinking behind that, that's it's a lot harder to overdose from smoking. This only works, though, if their unstated, untested, and unexamined premise holds -- that at least some people who already IV will smoke instead if smoking is decriminalized.

As we can surmise even without any studies, though, just by surveying the responses here, it won't eradicate the problem - some IV users will not use an ROA of smoking for the various reasons mentioned. But some will, and some would be grateful for decriminalization of a less dangerous ROA. So, if the ultimate goal is reducing overdose death, our unscientific responses here, as well as just thinking about it, suggest that the step might actually help reduce overdose death at least a little, even though it probably won't eradicate intravenous injection as an ROA.

So the less deadly ROA is likely to help at least a handful of people. The question is, will this step alone help enough to really make a dent in the problem as stated by the Health Minister? Nothing will tell but time, but I think anything that might lead to fewer OD deaths is a step in the right direction, and once opponents see "the sky didn't fall" from one step, they might be more willing to examine other steps, like medically supervised injecting rooms or broader decriminalization.
 
23536 said:
Isn't extenuating the problem a good thing?
Click to expand...

Wow. shimazu seems to want to be saying it's a bad idea, so shimazu probably meant "exacerbate" instead of "extenuate." As 23536 points out, though, grokking shimazu's sort of funny mistake, extenuating the problem would be a good thing. Exacerbating it would not, but as we can see, shimazu is not arguing on the strongest footing. There's just no arguing with some people.
 
blueheaven said:
There's just no arguing with some people.
Click to expand...

Yeah like heroin addicts. Sorry I know heroin is a problem and can admit it despite prior usage. Keep thinking you can live a productive life when you gotta show up to the same building every day just to escape from problems you are too much of a pussy to confront on your own. Sounds like dialysis for people who wont admit they are pieces of shit IMO.

But what the fuck would I know about heroin

And smoking it will only be good enough for so long, you wouldnt stay at a Motel 6 if the Waldorf was down the street for the same price would you?

Please, the worst thing I hate is when people try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because some times they are right.

But not about heroin

But enjoy living in your fantasy world that is being paid for by people who actually grew the fuck up
 
Hey, all I'm saying is that there are serious problems in what you're saying, both with logic and vocabulary. Nobody can argue with anybody when they aren't even using the same words to mean the same things. It tends to exacerbate confusion.
 
Hey man I'm sorry for snapping like that

Everyone must find out at their own pace

but know that I am not some anti-drug bigot, I just know a lot of people who have been playing Red Light / Green Light with heroin and sometimes it takes someone getting in your face and calling it for what it is for people to change.

And the people who won't stop via that method will ignore my outburst anyway, so if anything I am really only reaching out to someone that knows how negative it is, but just cant convince themselves to stop.

I hope anyone who is reading this and is currently addicted just realizes people only freak out on addicts because deep down they still do care about you, they are just out of ideas on what else to do.

And that's why I say it extenuates the problem by allowing govt sponsored "get high" rooms. If you just enable people their whole lives you are really only disabling their ability to see their true potential.
 
It's an unusual step in the right direction. I'm guessing IME however that it won't get a user to go from the needle to smoking it. Unless it's some odd, rare situation where there's no needles whatsoever anywhere and the person is in withdrawal. Or if - say - the user bought some smack for the first time from a new dealer, and the dealer warns him/her that it's really strong (although unlikely even in this case). Still, decriminalization of heroin in any first world country is an important step in the right direction. The stuff was sold as medicine by Bayer not too long ago. I'm just kidding, it was really long ago.
 
^I agree. I don't think it will turn IV users back, but I'm guessing that's not really too big a factor in the long game of changing social norms and reducing harm. As others have noted, decriminalization doesn't seem to increase use in the long run and that will hopefully be the case here. What's different is that, if this is true, the same rate of new users will continue to try heroin, but with an incentive to use mostly in legal smoking rooms where they will be exposed to harm reduction information and a drug culture enjoying some degree of acceptance for the first time that will naturally be antithetical toward IV use, whereas under total prohibition the culture is left to its own devices.
 
I don't know. Even when I was addicted to opioids, I always went for a non-I.V. route where possible. (Which tricky sometimes, cause I was getting parenteral solute in vials a lot) but whenever I had anything that was reasonably usable by non-injection methods I would go that way.

I don't like needles, and I don't like stupid risks.
 
shimazu said:
And smoking it will only be good enough for so long, you wouldnt stay at a Motel 6 if the Waldorf was down the street for the same price would you?
Click to expand...

I disagree. I used to use IV hydromorphone, mostly, and not too much heroin, but I did use it. And I've got to say, if it was legal, pure, and more price-able, I'd never even think of IVing, really.

Sure, you get the rush from IV use. But if smoking it was legal, you could simply vaporize as much heroin as you wanted and take it all as one inhalation. That, too, would give you a rush. I'm sure devices that aided in the inhalation of large amounts of heroin at once would proliferate once smoking it was legal.

If the Waldorf had a statistically significant chance of causing my death or the amputation of one of my limbs, you're damn straight I'd stay at the Motel 6.

It wouldn't be all about the rush if you could constantly smoke it. If you could legally (and therefore much more cheaply) smoke it, I'm almost sure that'd be sufficient for most people. It'd definitely be enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top