71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The murder rate of the USA is now almost 3 times higher than that of El Salvadors. New Zealand now has more murder than El Salvador.
New Zealand has 2.6 homicides per 100k. Singapore has 0.1 per 100k; 26x less.
This is why harm reduction is absolutely crucial. A lot of people will recover on their own given time, but you can't recover if you're dead. A moralistic model based primarily or solely on abstinence-based recovery fails addicts, their families and society.
Without the moralism, harm reduction is a vague term. Here in Canada the government has been pushing safe supply as a part of harm reduction. We still get the same number of overdoses but our cities are now filled with tent encampments and people with addiction issues. It doesn't seem to have helped with anything it's just made things worse I don't deny that there are some forms of harm reduction which are proven to…
Drug policy in North America seems to be ideologically fixated both on addiction as a singular problem, and on singular solutions to that problem. Addiction is an important and very hazardous part of someone's life, but it's only one part. Lots of people who live in tents or behave erratically in public aren't addicted to drugs; lots of people who are addicted to drugs don't live in tents or behave erratically in public.
Giving someone an adequate and reliable supply of pharmaceutical opioids is quite likely to reduce their risk of overdose if it gets them away from a highly variable supply of very potent synthetic opioids, but thinking that it'll solve all of their problems is pure fantasy. Keeping people alive is a prerequisite to fixing the rest of their life, but nothing more than that.
This is why harm reduction is absolutely crucial. A lot of people will recover on their own given time, but you can't recover if you're dead. A moralistic model based primarily or solely on abstinence-based recovery fails addicts, their families and society.
Does harm reduction include safe access to drugs? Basically this is why all substances need to be legal. So it's regulated. So many needless deaths becasue of overdoses that didn't need to happen. People just need to be supported through their low points so they come out the other side. To many ignorant people have an opinion on this though, as you can see in some of these comments. If you never used drugs, don't kno…
Only if it's part of an evidence-based and empirically validated strategy. We know that safe access to drugs can work as part of a harm reduction strategy, but there's also good reason to believe that thoughtless moves towards decriminalisation or legalisation can exacerbate harms. The Swiss model has worked incredibly well after a lot of difficult trial-and-error, but the Portuguese model is increasingly looking like a mistake. Even with the relatively lower-risk example of cannabis legalisation, we're seeing a very mixed picture in terms of outcomes. The devil is in the details.
I'd love to see trials of what Ashwagandha can do for addiction, because it lowers cortisol nearly immediately and is a relatively safe herb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, some local governments have been doing safe injection sites . Safe supply is a political football that's scapegoated despite not being implemented anywhere in Canada. And neither is a solution to the homelessness, addictions, and mental health crises. Every time I hear a politician talking about safe supply, they say it's not a silver bullet. Which is weird because nobody claims it's a silver bullet. Know what el…
As a former substance abuser I can assure you that criminalization was a strong motivator to stop. Anything and everything that made my behavior seem OK/normal in any way fueled the addiction. Fear of permanent incarceration was significant factor in hitting my bottom.
We certainly shouldn't shame people suffering from addiction. No one would choose that life if they knew what was coming or if they had sufficient control at any given moment. We also shouldn't pretend it isn't normal, because addiction is extremely common.
Yet it's ironically unkind to encourage someone, in any shape or form, to consider their addiction acceptable on any level. It's purely only welcoming death into life and burdening the world around you. It's a net loss and nothing more. To accept anything about it is absurd. Yes, accept the person and their shortcomings, but don't pretend the state of their life, especially contrasted with their potential, is anything like acceptable.
The hard thing here is that this kind of engagement and narrative arguably demands a lot more support than we're willing to give people. Telling them it's okay and giving them safe sites and supplies is a lot easier if it's financially viable. This sort of calculus, in my opinion, is a major cause of the tear in the social fabric which has lead to such widespread suffering in an unprecedentedly rich society where you might otherwise intuitively expect addiction to be eradicated. We're eager to invest financially before we do so emotionally or spiritually.
> Moreover, if addiction were truly a progressive disease, the data should show that the odds of quitting get worse over time. In fact, they remain the same on an annual basis, which means that as people get older, a higher and higher percentage wind up in recovery.
The first reference I clicked on was https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22985744/, which states:
> Remission from PDUD was greater for younger individuals.
It seems this article is based too heavily on the personal experience and opinions of the author.
FWIW, I think that societal solutions can work as well as medical ones. However, that has the implicit assumption that drug addiction, and the use of certain drugs, is bad. This is an opinion I have recently returned to, and also that reducing drug use and addiction to certain substances should begin with societal norms and limiting supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, some local governments have been doing safe injection sites . Safe supply is a political football that's scapegoated despite not being implemented anywhere in Canada. And neither is a solution to the homelessness, addictions, and mental health crises. Every time I hear a politician talking about safe supply, they say it's not a silver bullet. Which is weird because nobody claims it's a silver bullet. Know what el…
No your statement is incorrect. We do have safe supply in Canada. The CBC even wrote an article defending our safe supply program. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7071004 And this is a part of my problem with all this. I live in Toronto's downtown core and the explosion in drug issues since these policies came into effect is something I see and live with. And it's the same in our other major cities. And…
I believe that stress is one of the cornerstones of addiction. When people can't handle stress they turn to substances. When people "grow out" of addiction, they're really either finding another addiction, or learning to manage their stress and let go of substances used to cope. I'd love to see trials of what Ashwagandha can do for addiction, because it lowers cortisol nearly immediately and is a relatively safe herb…
Alternately, you just execute people for drug trafficking. A total win in terms of net human suffering.
E.g. the Singapore method. It works better than the western methods but people don't want to take it seriously and would rather suppress the suggestion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...
Alternately, you just execute people for drug trafficking. A total win in terms of net human suffering.
E.g. the Singapore method. It works better than the western methods but people don't want to take it seriously and would rather suppress the suggestion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...