As an Addict, is this humane?

[emkee_reinvented]

You bin through quite a lot Pentf0ld.

Let's say the beatiful country you live would have offered DiaMorphine ampules via your dr. that you could pick up at the pharmacy. Would you consider it a humane option or do you think it would have led to more problems in the end.

There are only 2 country's in the whole world were this is actually done, Britain and Swiss. But to me it seems it would solve a lot of things at once. The prescription costed only a fraction of what you would have payed on the street. The list of plusses is so long for prescribed Heroin I am stunned it isn't more common.

 

[Xorkoth]

It's because addicts are demonized and marginalized. The way I see it, so what if someone wants to be addicted to heroin? It's their problem. People are prescribed all kinds of drugs and get addicted to them and just have a continuous prescription and don't have to take to the streets and lie and steal, drugs that make their lives better (gabapentin, antidepressants, opioids, benzos, etc etc). We don't demonize those people, we say "they're mentally ill and they're taking their medicine". Yes it's true that illegal drug addicts have a tendency to cause harm to others, but it is because they are desperate, pushed to the margins of society, shunned, and are trying to support an overwhelmingly expensive habit. In Britain it seems to work out well for them from what I hear, addicts can get pure, clean heroin ampules and maintain that way, and without having to worry about withdrawal and copping expensive drugs, they can go on living their lives in a productive ways and not causing harm to anyone (except perhaps themselves but hey, we all have that right).

Of course when you have illegalized and demonized drugs and marginalized drug addicts, it does cause problems for society (mostly, the drug trade itself, which is allowed to be in the hands of violent cartels and gangs). But these problems are not necessary. And they don't make drug addicts bad people.

 

[Penf0ld]

You bin through quite a lot Pentf0ld.

Let's say the beatiful country you live would have offered DiaMorphine ampules via your dr. that you could pick up at the pharmacy. Would you consider it a humane option or do you think it would have led to more problems in the end.

There are only 2 country's in the whole world were this is actually done, Britain and Swiss. But to me it seems it would solve a lot of things at once. The prescription costed only a fraction of what you would have payed on the street. The list of plusses is so long for prescribed Heroin I am stunned it isn't more common.

I don't know if that option is any more humane in the long run than bring forced into getting off drugs against your will.

It's easy to judge from an observer and lump in all addicts as being helped by one method but as we know that is not realistic.


It's probably more realistic to have services and addiction centres far more available and easier to voluntarily go to which look beyond the addiction to what is behind it as well but that's not ever a priority of governments.

Australia will never have ampules of any drug available again as its easier to just shun and discard addicts here.


I haven't sought any treatment and haven't come to the attention of any public psych department in many years.

There is a public psych service here in the West officially but it is not funded and there are hardly any psychiatrists or psychologists left in it for there to be any help out there for anyone that can't afford private health insurance.

I have good mates suffering due to the pain alert clinics and public mental health service being incompetent and able to blacklist their clients from receiving pain meds (oxynorm) because they have scripts for dexies for adhd .


There is no help here so its looking like a good thing there is any treatment available at all in the states, even if it is horrible.

 

[JessFR]

Australia will never have ampules of any drug available again as its easier to just shun and discard addicts here.

People always say that. It's always impossible until it happens. People used to say cannabis would never be legal anywhere in the US. They still said it up until it actually happened.

They said we'd never have a black president. Americans are too racist. Until it happened.

It's impossible until it happens, then people realize it was inevitable.

 

[OpiateKiller]

What an interesting post. Funny because I’ve lived this law.

I’m from MA and I’ve been Section 35’d by family, did 2 weeks in the shit hole in Bridgewater.

I can see both sides of the argument, but no it is not humane to answer in short. No one should ever be forced to do something they personally do not want to do.

On the other hand, in my addictive history I have NEVER stopped using drugs even ONCE on my own will. Every time I have EVER gotten sober it was a forced situation in which I had no choice (jail, homelessness, probation, etc)

So in the name of potentially saving someone’s life because they are UNABLE to see sobriety as even a POSSIBILITY. This law has some logic behind it, and I fucking lived it I was arrested on a warrant for Section 35 and i was sentenced to do this bullshit.

If an addict can not get sober on his own will and it is necessary to forcefully be required to be removed from society, is it for the greater good? It’s a damn good debate to have and I can are both sides of the debate... because not only have I lived it but I can see them regardless.

Idk about you people, but personally as a drug addict when I am in active addiction getting sober is not something I just do. Every time it’s happened I either get arrested or a huge life altering event convinced me it’s time to stop shooting heroin.

 

[JessFR]

What an interesting post. Funny because I’ve lived this law.

I’m from MA and I’ve been Section 35’d by family, did 2 weeks in the shit hole in Bridgewater.

I can see both sides of the argument, but no it is not humane to answer in short. No one should ever be forced to do something they personally do not want to do.

On the other hand, in my addictive history I have NEVER stopped using drugs even ONCE on my own will. Every time I have EVER gotten sober it was a forced situation in which I had no choice (jail, homelessness, probation, etc)

So in the name of potentially saving someone’s life because they are UNABLE to see sobriety as even a POSSIBILITY. This law has some logic behind it, and I fucking lived it I was arrested on a warrant for Section 35 and i was sentenced to do this bullshit.

If an addict can not get sober on his own will and it is necessary to forcefully be required to be removed from society, is it for the greater good? It’s a damn good debate to have and I can are both sides of the debate... because not only have I lived it but I can see them regardless.

Idk about you people, but personally as a drug addict when I am in active addiction getting sober is not something I just do. Every time it’s happened I either get arrested or a huge life altering event convinced me it’s time to stop shooting heroin.

Let me ask you something. You say you've never stopped of your own free will. Where does substitution therapy fit into all this? Was it an option but one you were unwilling to try? An option you tried but weren't able to stay on without continuing to use? Not an option at all?

I ask because I believe I'd still be on heroin if I hadn't had access to the methadone program. And more specifically, an implementation of the methadone program not managed by idiots.

Even taking your argument into account though, the confinement needs to be to a medical facility. Not jail. That's still completely unethical regardless of anything else.

Not to mention the danger to the addict this poses. Being forced to get off drugs entirely when you're still wanting to use means it's likely you will go straight back to using. Only since you now have a low tolerance, you're much more likely to overdose. You mentioned yourself how every time you've gotten clean it was by force. Which means you still started using again. That's dangerous. When you start with little or no tolerance is when the risk of overdose is at its highest.

And finally. I still think this whole argument falls apart when you consider that we could just provide pharmaceutical heroin to keep addicts from hurting other people. It's done in other developed countries. It works. We don't need to use less humane methods, and so we shouldn't.

Frankly, by the point where I'd say confinement is acceptable. It would have to be that the addict is still committing crimes against members of the public, like theft or whatever. In spite of being able to get heroin through a state medical program, and at that point I suspect the crimes aren't that likely to even be because of drug addiction anymore, and we're back to the normal criminal justice system.

Some are gonna argue back that we aren't gonna get a state medical heroin program like in the UK, but this is all hypothetical anyway. We are all just talking about how we think things SHOULD work anyway.

But taking it off the table just for the sake of debate, if still only accept confinement where methadone and subuxone therapies have failed, AND there has been at least a couple chances to change, and then only to a medical facility designed to help them. Jail is out of the question.

Confinement based on helping the addict get clean is also unacceptable. Not just for moral grounds, but because it's stupid. Forcing someone to get clean before they're ready means they'll just go use again when they get out. And having their tolerance fluctuate so much greatly increases the risk of overdose. So that arguments bs.

Some will also ask why addicts should be given so many opportunities to change before confinement. To that I would say that addicts lives have value too. Unless they are putting the lives or health of others in real danger because of their actions, it can't be justified subjecting them to a punishment that increases their risk of early death. Humans are worth more than "stuff".

Sorry for such a long post, but its a complex argument.

 

[Penf0ld]

What an interesting post. Funny because I’ve lived this law.

I’m from MA and I’ve been Section 35’d by family, did 2 weeks in the shit hole in Bridgewater.

I can see both sides of the argument, but no it is not humane to answer in short. No one should ever be forced to do something they personally do not want to do.

On the other hand, in my addictive history I have NEVER stopped using drugs even ONCE on my own will. Every time I have EVER gotten sober it was a forced situation in which I had no choice (jail, homelessness, probation, etc)

So in the name of potentially saving someone’s life because they are UNABLE to see sobriety as even a POSSIBILITY. This law has some logic behind it, and I fucking lived it I was arrested on a warrant for Section 35 and i was sentenced to do this bullshit.

If an addict can not get sober on his own will and it is necessary to forcefully be required to be removed from society, is it for the greater good? It’s a damn good debate to have and I can are both sides of the debate... because not only have I lived it but I can see them regardless.

Idk about you people, but personally as a drug addict when I am in active addiction getting sober is not something I just do. Every time it’s happened I either get arrested or a huge life altering event convinced me it’s time to stop shooting heroin.

What should friends and family do when their loved one is of such concern and they fear they will harm or Kil themselves or harm other people that they are compelled to get them forced into a facility?


I don't know the specifics of what happens over in the states but as it seems getting arrested and then having a record of arrest due to addiction is the go there then that is a problem and I think that is not appropriate but being put in a rehab situation is the way to go if there is no other way to save them from themselves.

Over here there is no such thing these days and all family can do is call police for a welfare check. Even if drug use and the person is clearly needing help they can't be forced even then.

If there were some intervention that could over ride the resistant , some of my friends would be alive today. There is nothing worse than getting the call that a mate has died despite having tried everything to help.




But from the point of view of an addict who is the subject in question , being taken to rehab or arrested would seem as a betrayal and the best thing for addicts to do and realise is their life and how they choose to live it is their responsibility . No one is owed anything and everyone who has addictions should have the ability to look after themselves , not only for their own health but for their loved ones who would not be in the position to step in if they could find a way to manage their addictions by themselves.


A lot of issues that occur in life and are catalysts to fall into addiction can be helped by having a decent support system so addicts should have peers to turn to.

 

[JessFR]

The problem is... Not everyone has good, caring, supportive families who only want what's best for them. And systems that allow families to basically take away a family members personal freedom inevitably wind up being abused.

Worse still, drug addicts due to the demographic we tend to fall in are already more likely to have exactly the kind of families who are the last people who should be given any kind of power.

It's VERY easy for what at first seems like a good idea to go horribly wrong.

There are better ways to help addicts that aren't as prone to horrible abuses.

There's no way in the world I'm ever going to support giving power to family members to decide on their own authority that I need to be saved from myself by force. That's not their decision to make.

I think that's a horrible idea just asking to be abused.

I mean absolutely no offense or disrespect here. But you can't possibly know how things might have turned out differently for your friends had some form of forceful intervention been possible. Some of them might still be alive. Some might still be dead.

Some people might be alive now had nobody tried to intervene. People have died because they were pressured to get clean before they were ready, relapsed, then overdosed.

When I was using heavily, there was almost no chance at all of me dying from an overdose. My tolerance was so high that I was just never gonna end up mistakingly ODing. I once accidentally took a shot of heroin meant for 3 people, one with the same habit I had. Not sure exactly how much it would have been, but probably well over 1.5g (man they were pissed when they realized, fortunately it was their screw up not mine). I didn't even come close to dying.

But if you have almost no tolerance, cause say someone made you go to rehab and get sober. Then you start using again because you're not really ready to quit. You might well be in more danger than if you hadn't tried to stop at all.

And add in the stupid shit even completely well intentioned loved ones sometimes think about drug addition. No way in hell do I want them having any power whatsoever.

Forced rehab for someone who doesn't want it is not saving someone from themselves. There are better options society should be using.

Believing that forced rehab would be better is a perception bias. It's politician logic. "we have to do something, this is something we can do, so we have to do this". It entirely fails to consider that forced rehab could increase the overall risk of death.

 

[OpiateKiller]

I agree completely with your notion that rehabilitation is key and jail ultimately is one of the worst places to put a drug addict. Personally I wasn’t really committing crimes at the time I was just minding my own business using heroin, but Section 35 is pretty flawed all it takes is a claim one is danger to oneself, and they see heavy drug use as justification to take away your freedom.

All jail has ever done for me is give me new heroin connections, put me in a dangerous high stress environment where you might have to fight because the majority of people in jail are uneducated morons who want to “prove” themselves. It’s a childish barbaric mindset of low IQ idiots.

And I agree completely forced sobriety is a terrible thing, you see people at AA / NA meetings just there to get a sheet signed nodding off in the back triggering newly sober individuals. Let alone the high possibility of overdose upon relapse.

I unsuccessfully was on suboxone using heroin the whole time with a shit clinic, they didn’t care I was peeing dirty for heroin and benzos they kept giving me my scripts.

I’ve had brief periods clean from opiates, never long term though.

It would be lovely if the US would implement heroin stations for addicts, it would take away virtually all drug related crime, deaths, decrease Hep C / HIV rates.. but our government is not in our best interest unfortunately.

I’ve never tried methadone but if I continue to relapse on H it will likely be the next step.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

My mate got a shot in the bud when he had his second psychosis. Police, dr. and mental health care were all around him.
He acted freaky said some enlighted things here and there, climbed his neighbour's curtains. But at no point was a danger to his fellow man and not to himself afaik.

It was not only humiliating to see but even more to experience it. I learned that later on.
He talked about that event till year's later now and then. Forcing thing's upon people in mental distress creates more problems in the long run is what you could make of it.

Methadon. despite the effectiveness for people. There is a percentage that take's alcohol, benzo's and crack on top. Because it just doesn't cut it.

The girl on prescribed pharmacy Heroin vs involuntary Rehab.

 

[awesome31311]

Mental health care is at its absolute worst in emergency commitment settings. Don't even get me started. I'd rather have people post stupid defenses of the state, and then refute them by showing them how our system is flawed than list reasons why it is.

The main fallacy used in America today is "It's either jail or this", which is an absolutely ridiculous argument because possession and use of a drug is not jail worthy, it's a psychological issue that needs to be treated in a counseling center. Many countries get this. America worships big pharma too much to get it.