Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

fox59.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#51

Post by bfuller »

tobltobs wrote: post #37
Jdam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because Bavaria is close to the Czech republic and the bavarian/czech border is a well known import corridor. Google further info on that, if you’re interested. Also, I invite you to compare the NRW numbers to the Berlin ones.

The drug importers don't sell their stuff along their import corridors. They bring it to next distribution center before they start splitting it up. according your logic Texas would be one of the states with a high drug overdose mortality. You are confusing small scale crystal meth smuggling with large scale opiate importing.

>The drug importers don't sell their stuff along their import corridors.

This lacks perspective. Border states have "black tar" heroin, which comes from mexico, and is less pure than northeast heroin which is purer and in powder form instead of tar.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#52

Post by colechristensen »

blauditore wrote: post #39
tcj_phx wrote: post #13

In days gone by, heroin addicts knew how much heroin they needed to 'stay well'. A major factor in the escalation of deaths in the modern era is the contamination of the street pharmacy's heroin supply with more potent synthetic opioids (fentanyl, etc). Overdoses happen when street drugs are more potent than the user expects, or when the user's tolerance has changed. Two factors in my girlfriend's OD were having been…

> Until the politicians find courage to acknowledge that it was a mistake to trust organized crime to control the supply of addictive substances, [...] What would be a better solution in your opinion? Legalizing it, or allowing it with prescription? I see some problems with those alternatives as well; there's probably no magic bullet here.

Make everything legal to obtain or manufacture with a license attainable though education and certification – something in between what it takes to get a driver's license and an AA degree.

If you want to buy heroin you have to understand it's addictive qualities, how human biology is affected, and how to recognize the negative consequences.

Attach liability to the licensee for anything purchased that resulted in harm and to distributing substances with incorrect descriptions.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#53

Post by bfuller »

sfstreet wrote: post #26

"The facilities provide a safe space where people can consume previously obtained drugs" That seems strange. If you actually tolerate drug use why not go the full way and provide clean versions of the drug on prescription, driving illegal dealers out of business?

We're getting there. There are opiate maintenance programs that utilize diamorphine (obviously not in the USA). They will give you pure heroin and supervise you so you don't fall out.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#54

Post by AnabeeKnox »

blackbagboys wrote: post #30
sergers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think safe injection sites solve that problem, it's about making a safe environment for junkies to safely take drugs in hopes they don't do it elsewhere littering needles and drug paraphernalia in other public spaces, especially around children. Now for the junkies, needs to be more than a safe haven to shoot up and definitely agree with your sentiments. I know they offer more than that, but some people just…

The hope is that the "junkies" don't die. If that is all that's accomplished, that's still a success. There doesn't need to be more. Obviously there should be an option for users to enter treatment or receive some sort of assistance, but addicts should definitely not be forced into anything just to satisfy some petit bourgeois stern moral impulse, because that will ultimately drive people away and cost lives.

"petit bourgeois stern moral impulse"

I don't know if you've ever met a working-class person, but I think you have things the opposite way round. It tends to be the middle-class petit-bourgeois who advocate a tolerant approach to the victims of drug abuse. Working-class people despise junkies because they are on the front-line of the associated crime, decay, danger, filth, child-neglect, disease etc.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#55

Post by Freestyler_3 »

lostlogin wrote: post #33
ggg9990 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with no stake in this, I would rather have all of that decay in one place I can avoid rather than strewn about my city.

Hamsterdam. In all seriousness, watch The Wire. It gets you thinking and covers the topic well.

I opened the article and immediatly thought "oh this is a plan straight from the wire"

Knew someone was going to mention it :)

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#56

Post by Faaak »

formol wrote: post #3

The very lefty mayor of Paris launched one « safe site » in the city. Results : disneyland for drug dealers and addicts in the area, dead people (OD) in the street, noise, fights...

There's a safe site in Geneva (quai 9) near the train station, and none of the effects describe can be seen there.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#57

Post by [deleted] »

blauditore wrote: post #39
tcj_phx wrote: post #13

In days gone by, heroin addicts knew how much heroin they needed to 'stay well'. A major factor in the escalation of deaths in the modern era is the contamination of the street pharmacy's heroin supply with more potent synthetic opioids (fentanyl, etc). Overdoses happen when street drugs are more potent than the user expects, or when the user's tolerance has changed. Two factors in my girlfriend's OD were having been…

> Until the politicians find courage to acknowledge that it was a mistake to trust organized crime to control the supply of addictive substances, [...] What would be a better solution in your opinion? Legalizing it, or allowing it with prescription? I see some problems with those alternatives as well; there's probably no magic bullet here.

[deleted]

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#58

Post by throwaway9990 »

colechristensen wrote: post #52
blauditore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until the politicians find courage to acknowledge that it was a mistake to trust organized crime to control the supply of addictive substances, [...] What would be a better solution in your opinion? Legalizing it, or allowing it with prescription? I see some problems with those alternatives as well; there's probably no magic bullet here.

Make everything legal to obtain or manufacture with a license attainable though education and certification – something in between what it takes to get a driver's license and an AA degree. If you want to buy heroin you have to understand it's addictive qualities, how human biology is affected, and how to recognize the negative consequences. Attach liability to the licensee for anything purchased that resulted in harm…

Would have loved for this to work, but there might be a few problems.

1. Some people might pass the test and sell it to others who didn't.

2. I'm not sure how education helps here. Everyone who takes heroin/cocaine knows how bad it is. I think people actually think it's much worse than it is.

After taking a "health" class in high school, my friends and I said "wow, I thought drugs are much worse". For example, they showed a recording of a lady taking MDMA and enjoying it in her room. From what I was taught before that, I assumed she must die or commit suicide immediately or must start craving another dose a day later. Same thing with marijuana.

"It's bad, but we can't tell you why except some potential side effects that may or may not occur"

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#59

Post by meri_dian »

colechristensen wrote: post #52
blauditore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until the politicians find courage to acknowledge that it was a mistake to trust organized crime to control the supply of addictive substances, [...] What would be a better solution in your opinion? Legalizing it, or allowing it with prescription? I see some problems with those alternatives as well; there's probably no magic bullet here.

Make everything legal to obtain or manufacture with a license attainable though education and certification – something in between what it takes to get a driver's license and an AA degree. If you want to buy heroin you have to understand it's addictive qualities, how human biology is affected, and how to recognize the negative consequences. Attach liability to the licensee for anything purchased that resulted in harm…

Education will not stop people from getting caught in the death grip of heroin. Just as education does not stop people from smoking cigarettes today.

And once an addict is born, as they say, that person will struggle with addiction for the rest of their lives even if they manage to abstain.

I'm all for legalization of marijuana, but legalization of heroin is a very poor idea. Heroin must be kept out of the hands of the people.

Re: Safe injection sites in San Francisco could be first in the US

#60

Post by DrScump »

j0rd wrote: post #20
AnabeeKnox wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a hard sell to use Vancouver as a model. It has an area which is perhaps the most public display of social decay I've ever encounted in a first-world city, principally from drug abuse.

The DTES is a shit hole, but it was kind of engineered to be that way. As for the safe injection site stuff, I lived and worked in the area around the time that place was opened. It was a shit hole before it opened and continued to be so after it opened. I never went in the site, and never cared to. Nothing special around it. People shoot up in the streets all the time and I'd still be careful where you walk to not s…

"But supposedly this: Rates of HIV infection dropped from 8.1 cases per 100 person-years in 1997 to 0.37 cases per 100 person-years by 2011"

I'd like to see a source on that; at minimum, I suspect those numbers would be for new, not total, infections, and I've never seen HIV stats narrowed down to the block level. Plus, sexual transmissions unrelated to the injection site should have accounted for more cases than that.

Post reply on HN