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

Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 193 posts

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#131

Post by edblarney »

api_or_ipa wrote: post #86

See Vancouver's Insite program for proof it works. It's been a huge economic and social success, allowing timely intervention to help drug users get clean, reducing the rate of HIV and HepC amongst intravenous drug users and helping numerous people get a fresh start at life.

"See Vancouver's Insite program for proof it works. It's been a huge economic and social success"

No - this is not true. OD's are at an all time high in the region [1]

It's a highly politicized issues and the entities behind it are strongly incented to make it seem as though it's working.

The only evidence of Insite 'working' is provided by them - and the data points they provide are selective, unscientific and definitely not objective.

There is no objective evidence to indicate that 'it's working'.

If it were a success - we should see number of users down, crime down, cleaner neighbourhood etc. - but no. None of that.

There has been no effect on the overall drug using population. There are no external metrics for success at all.

By 'success' Insite points to the 'number of ODs prevented' the number of 'addicts into programs' - but this assumes that those ODs would have resulted in death or would not have been dealt with otherwise, and that there are not other ways to get people into recovery programs.

Given the amount of $$$ being spent on the clinic, I'm very doubtful that we can claim any degree of success.

It boils down to a cleaner place to shoot up - that's about it.

I think it's worth keeping open as a 'point of experiment' so that we can try different methods of approach - but it's ripe to call it a 'success'.

When numbers of users is measurably down, crime is down, that area is safe to walk in during the day (it's not as of now) - then we can start claiming success.

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/drug-overdose...

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#132

Post by lend000 »

loeg wrote: post #100
nooron wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the whole piece? There's strong evidence that drug abuse is bad, and that the best way to mitigate it is through harm reduction policies -- and that these policies ultimately reduce use of drugs. Which is what you want, right?

I'm pro-legalization, but there is a good argument to be made that legalization increases access and as a result you'd see a much higher rate of casual use (orders of magnitude higher). Any slight increase in healthcare costs or negative outcomes on a per-person basis multiplied across a large population is a factor worth considering.

But is there evidence that there would be a significant change? That hasn't been shown in California, Oregon, Washington, or Colorado, in the case of marijuana. Why would other drugs be different?

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#133

Post by edblarney »

zkms wrote: post #19
jayajay wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not convinced that that it will reduce overdose or trafficking. It depends on the drug's economics and pharmacodynamics, ease of production, addictiveness, LD50, etc. What's better? More people using high-grade heroin in a controlled, safe environment, or less people using low quality heroin in an uncontrolled, dangerous environment? If the LD50 is very easy to arrive at in everyday usage, then I don't see this…

Opioid use is not inherently dangerous (indeed, long-term pharmaceutical-grade opioid use is remarkably safe does not cause organ damage, unlike alcohol). There are several actual circumstances where opioid use gets dangerous to life and they are: 1) Dosage/concentration uncertainty 2) Contamination of a lower strength opioid (say, morphine or heroin) with a much higher strength one (fentanyl or fentanyl analogues) 3…

"Opioid use is not inherently dangerous"

Yes, it is. It's extremely addictive, and is very well known to destroy lives.

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#134

Post by edblarney »

paulmd wrote: post #14
jayajay wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not convinced that that it will reduce overdose or trafficking. It depends on the drug's economics and pharmacodynamics, ease of production, addictiveness, LD50, etc. What's better? More people using high-grade heroin in a controlled, safe environment, or less people using low quality heroin in an uncontrolled, dangerous environment? If the LD50 is very easy to arrive at in everyday usage, then I don't see this…

> Would it bet better for everyone to have a safe, controlled dependency on heroin, or for 5% of people to have an unsafe, uncontrolled dependency on heroin? For an answer, you can just look at alcohol, which is typically assessed as having roughly similar social harm to heroin (although it varies by source). Were things better during prohibition, or today?

"alcohol, which is typically assessed as having roughly similar social harm to heroin"

This is absurd.

There is no place on earth where it is 'typical' to consider alcohol to be more dangerous than heroin.

The ridiculous 'research' on alcohol v. heroin make comparisons as to 'how many accidents are caused by each' etc. in society, which is obviously not a fair comparison considering once is widely used, the other very infrequently.

Opioids are extremely addictive, and destructive in almost all cases of use.

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#135

Post by edblarney »

paulmd wrote: post #29
jayajay wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't accept that heroin and alcohol are equal in that sense. I would be very skeptical about any sources claiming this equality. Ease of production, pharmacodynamics, etc. Edit: Ideally, humans wouldn't be consuming poison? But, what is poison? It's a lot more complicated than "alcohol is bad" or "heroin is bad". Maybe you are right, letting down the flood gates will surely kill people who don't have control, and…

Honest question, do you have an alcohol problem or addictive personality that is driving this fear? If not, what keeps you from drinking yourself to sleep on the sidewalk every night? When it comes down to it, not all drugs are equal. Heroin isn't "alcohol but worse". People who drink tend to get pretty nasty sometimes, and that's a social harm that someone who's nodding doesn't perpetrate. And in terms of physical h…

" People who drink tend to get pretty nasty sometimes, and that's a social harm that someone who's nodding doesn't perpetrate."

If everyone did heroin today - instead of drinking - the world would fall apart.

Can you imagine 50 000 people at a Football game, all doing smack? Sure, it would be a fun game. Within days, 10% of them would be full on addicts. Within weeks maybe 50% of them would. Those people would go through hell or high water to stay permanently high.

Giving them 'cheap and safe' smack at Walgreens is not going to help them - it would destroy them.

"If you eliminate the need to commit crime to obtain black-market drugs at obscene prices, a lot of the harms of heroin go away."

Have you actually ever met an addict - do you realize how insanely destroyed their lives become? Do you think that by making the drug cheaper and more accessible that this is going to 'make them better'? No - it's only helping to kill them.

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#136

Post by solipsism »

daeken wrote: post #129
tigershark wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah right. Because there is such thing like heroin responsible use.

Yes, there is. Is it the norm? Not at all, but that doesn't change the fact that some people do use heroin in moderation and without it drastically impacting their lives. This polarized look at heroin use further stigmatizes drug users and leads to those with problems (and casual users who are having trouble not letting it get out of hand) not getting the help they deserve.

Playing russian roulette isn't responsible just because you don't get shot. There are many people who use it in moderation... until they don't. Until they make one too many "bit more won't hurt" type decisions. Or they lose their job or a family member dies or they just have a shitty day.

"responsible heroin use" is probably the stupidest phrase I've heard all day, and I've been watching CNN.

EDIT: And, by the way, calling a spade a spade and naming heroin as the scourge it is is not stigmatizing users.

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#137

Post by RangerScience »

loeg wrote: post #97
RangerScience wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're using the incorrect mental model of addicts popularized by DARE, etc. I mean first - > If you get a prescription for heroin that would probably lead to addiction right? Decently sure OP is suggesting replacing obtaining heroin from the street with obtaining it through a doctor. As such, only existing (and new) addicts are effected; you would not create addicts. Alternatively, this story you have told i…

You have a great comment, and I agree with much of it. However, Rat Park doesn't replicate and probably shouldn't be touted as a good example of addiction behavior.

Interesting. I sure as shit don't know enough about Rat Park. Do you have some links to the failure to replicate?

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#138

Post by baddox »

solipsism wrote: post #136
daeken wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is. Is it the norm? Not at all, but that doesn't change the fact that some people do use heroin in moderation and without it drastically impacting their lives. This polarized look at heroin use further stigmatizes drug users and leads to those with problems (and casual users who are having trouble not letting it get out of hand) not getting the help they deserve.

Playing russian roulette isn't responsible just because you don't get shot. There are many people who use it in moderation... until they don't. Until they make one too many "bit more won't hurt" type decisions. Or they lose their job or a family member dies or they just have a shitty day. "responsible heroin use" is probably the stupidest phrase I've heard all day, and I've been watching CNN. EDIT: And, by the way, c…

Does that mean you don't believe that responsible alcohol or tobacco use is possible? What about prescription pain medication?

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#139

Post by akjainaj »

mindslight wrote: post #46
thilmo wrote: post #30

We've had this in Australia for some time and I think it's abominable. Western civilisation is founded on the rule of law. Obey the law and you do fine, break the law and you get punished. When you start saying to people "Hey guys, we know you're breaking the law, but go ahead and fucking do it in this room, we don't mind, you won't get arrested or punished" Here's a better approach to drug users: catch them, sentenc…

Or you know, fix the law so it is no longer attempting to lay claim over every individual's body. Perverting the "rule of law" with an attempt to dictate personal morality undermines the institution itself.

>attempting to lay claim over every individual's body

If that's the way it's going to be, why not let them simply die when they OD?

Re: Seattle Is Opening First in U.S. “Safe Injection Facility” for Heroin Addicts

#140

Post by solipsism »

baddox wrote: post #138
solipsism wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing russian roulette isn't responsible just because you don't get shot. There are many people who use it in moderation... until they don't. Until they make one too many "bit more won't hurt" type decisions. Or they lose their job or a family member dies or they just have a shitty day. "responsible heroin use" is probably the stupidest phrase I've heard all day, and I've been watching CNN. EDIT: And, by the way, c…

Does that mean you don't believe that responsible alcohol or tobacco use is possible? What about prescription pain medication?

That's like asking, "Does that mean you don't believe in responsible knife juggling?" One is going to kill you a lot more surely and quickly than the other, but neither is a good idea.

To say heroin and alcohol/tobacco are equivalent would be stupid. To say an addition to heroin has no similarities to an addition to alcohol/tobacco would also be stupid.

Post reply on HN