4 ms·

> Amsterdam, 1985, the government supplied methadone using an old city bus they transformed into a drug dispensary, they even supplied clean needles for free.

> Amsterdam, 1985, the government supplied methadone using an old city bus they transformed into a drug dispensary, they even supplied clean needles for free. In the documentary I was mentioning (sorry, can't find a link or remember the title), I saw something like that in Canada (IIRC). It was a room with needles, with a nurse or something to supervise and monitor injections. And of course there were doses of Narcan in case an OD happens. But no methadone whatsoever was offered. Or if there was, it wasn't mentioned. So basically the government was paying to provide an infrastructure for drug consumption. In other words : customer support. It's as if they were working for drug dealers. To me that's outrageous.

astronautjones 9y ago
Heroin was introduced by a corporation to the masses, and they kept selling it through illegal channels after it was made illegal. We live in a society where the governments are controlled by those same corporations - would you be more offended if Bayer was running those clinics and charging those who overdose?
jacquesm 9y ago
> So basically the government was paying to provide an infrastructure for drug consumption. So what? > customer support. It's as if they were working for drug dealers. To me that's outrageous. What's outrageous is that you'd rather see those people die. That's the alternative. To get them off the streets, registered and out of the risk of getting hepatitis or HIV is the beginning of giving them a chance to clean up. The government even competed with the drug dealers: they gave out free heroin to those that were already addicted. And it's not as if any of this isn't a selfish thing by society, the cost of an addict over the longer term is far higher than the cost of helping them, so it is actually better for everybody. I really don't understand these extremist viewpoints when it comes to healthcare.
- grondilu 9y ago
  > What's outrageous is that you'd rather see those people die. That's the alternative. You're not supposed to save lives at any cost. Not if that means you'd associate with or reward crime. That's why you don't submit to blackmail, for instance. In the same way when someone is selling drugs illegally, you're supposed to put him in jail, not help him with his business.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > You're not supposed to save lives at any cost. The cost is quite manageable. > Not if that means you'd associate with or reward crime. They don't. > That's why you don't submit to blackmail, for instance. What does that have to do with any of this? > In the same way when someone is selling drugs illegally, you're supposed to put him in jail, not help him with his business. I'm sure you will feel right at home in AG Sessions office or with the Philippine leader. Me, I'm much more comfortable starting from root cause analysis rather than to just hunt symptoms, I think hunting symptoms is a waste of time, effort and resources.

astronautjones 9y ago

Heroin was introduced by a corporation to the masses, and they kept selling it through illegal channels after it was made illegal. We live in a society where the governments are controlled by those same corporations - would you be more offended if Bayer was running those clinics and charging those who overdose?

jacquesm 9y ago

> So basically the government was paying to provide an infrastructure for drug consumption. So what? > customer support. It's as if they were working for drug dealers. To me that's outrageous. What's outrageous is that you'd rather see those people die. That's the alternative. To get them off the streets, registered and out of the risk of getting hepatitis or HIV is the beginning of giving them a chance to clean up. The government even competed with the drug dealers: they gave out free heroin to those that were already addicted. And it's not as if any of this isn't a selfish thing by society, the cost of an addict over the longer term is far higher than the cost of helping them, so it is actually better for everybody. I really don't understand these extremist viewpoints when it comes to healthcare.

grondilu 9y ago
> What's outrageous is that you'd rather see those people die. That's the alternative. You're not supposed to save lives at any cost. Not if that means you'd associate with or reward crime. That's why you don't submit to blackmail, for instance. In the same way when someone is selling drugs illegally, you're supposed to put him in jail, not help him with his business.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > You're not supposed to save lives at any cost. The cost is quite manageable. > Not if that means you'd associate with or reward crime. They don't. > That's why you don't submit to blackmail, for instance. What does that have to do with any of this? > In the same way when someone is selling drugs illegally, you're supposed to put him in jail, not help him with his business. I'm sure you will feel right at home in AG Sessions office or with the Philippine leader. Me, I'm much more comfortable starting from root cause analysis rather than to just hunt symptoms, I think hunting symptoms is a waste of time, effort and resources.