...on the taxpayer's dime.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150076,00.html
I... I don't even know how to classify this. It's just so bizarre and out there... I guess it's a socialist act, but aren't acts of socialism supposed to be a direct benefit to those who receive them, and (theoretically) an improvement to the population as a whole? There's nothing beneficial about heroin, so it could be a detriment in the mindset of "a government holds a monopoly on violence;" surely non-government entities are not allowed to go around and hand out syringes full of smack, right? But then, this "punishment" is completely voluntary...
I understand the arguments about disease and overdosing, but if someone has a drunk driving problem, you don't make sure the car they get into has seat belts and airbags; you stop them from getting in the car and then stop them from driving in the future. Making a dangerous problem slightly safer is nowhere near as desirable as stopping the problem entirely.
As an American, I know that my taxes go to pay for some pretty stupid shit, and definitely a lot of stuff for which I believe the government has no business paying for. But at least I can take some small consolation in knowing that they're not buying fucking heroin injections for heroin addicts.
Whatever happened to methadone? Or hell, even needle exchange programs?
2GET
> It's just so bizarre and out there.
The Netherlands have done it, too. But I don't feel like expanding on why these programs are good for the tax payers as well as the junkies themselves. Maybe somebody else does, or I'll later.
What do you think Methodone is? It's just liquid smack.
Hey, at least the junkies aren't breaking into your house to steal your shit.
DONT STEAL: THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION
It's not just about competition. The very concept of property in general relies on the government backing up and securing it by legal means. Of course you can also trade and make your living in illegal economical sectors but when shit goes down (which it does all too often in the drug business) extreme violence is bound to happen immediately (in everything legal, it usually takes a lot of time and goes through a lot of political processes until such actions (up to war) are actually carried out).
I knew that somewhere, someone out there would hear about this and try to argue that it's not a very important and positive thing. I just didn't expect to find that person here.
The Canadian Government, leaders of a nation soiled by violent "followers," are taking action against drug-related crime. No matter how many words you try to put to this, there's simply no arguing that this is a positive thing.
The other argument is that it may entice clean, upstanding people to become drug addicts. The same applies in countries where unemployment benefits are easily obtained, many people just become flaky with their employment with the full knowledge that the taxpayer can clean up their ignorance.
>> 6
kekekekekekekeke!
are you just being funny or do you actually think this is a good idea bubu?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction
>Whatever happened to methadone?
Critics of methadone treatment claim that this is merely a substitution of one addiction for another
I recall reading in the news about doctors arrested for giving out too much methadone. Doctors are not good law enforcers, they tend to err on the "I want to help no matter what" side.
>Or hell, even needle exchange programs?
Critics claim that these measures will encourage addiction by making it safer to inject illicit drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_exchange_program
In the US the use of federal funds for needle-exchange programmes was banned in 1988 and most states criminalise the possession of needles without a prescription, even so far as to arrest people as they leave private needle-exchange centres.
I recall Switzerland's experiment of creating a haven for junkies. After a while they had to stop the experiment, the town was a mess.
>>8
whew
>>9
The Swiss "regulated dispensing" of heroin was devised after the public had been shocked by a series of documentaries about the appalling conditions prevalent in the area of the infamous Lettensteg. It had served as a breeding ground for excessive violence (shootings, rape, ...)and disease, until a battalion of the Zurich Municipial Police stormed the Limmatquay area in a huge "cleansing" action. In the wake of the problematics concerning drug-related crime, the concept of prescription heroin for the badly addicted (1200 cases in all of .ch) was instated and, despite ongoing defamation by the ultra-rightist SVP continues to be a success. The directive on "regulated heroin prescription" was recently reconfirmed and extended until 2009.
It might be noted that the programme costs SFr 26'000,- per addict per annum (including psychological treatment, infratrsucture and scientific evaluation), whereas the drug-related crime caused by a non-participant in the programme costs the taxpayer a whopping SFr 120'000,- per annum, per addict.
http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2002/index0_35.html
Needle exchange programmes exist in many European nations, even those with conservative governments, such as the Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria (&c. &c.) and according to trustworthy sources such as the INSEE or ZASD this has not led to a significant increase in drug abusers (the widespread heroin epidemic occured before needle exchange programs were instated in Europe), while enormously decreasing the number of infections.
In closing, I might add, that I'm not very surprisingly advocating that heroin prescription not be instated where I live, because I believe that different methods of treatment may be more effective, albeit more costly.
> The same applies in countries where unemployment benefits are easily obtained, many people just become flaky with their employment with the full knowledge that the taxpayer can clean up their ignorance.
Cite sources, please.
> The other argument is that it may entice clean, upstanding people to become drug addicts.
Yeah right. As if they wouldn't test people whether they are already heavily addicted at those governmental institutions.
Some of you people look like pretty straight trolls itt, even >>1
People who don't like socialism like to talk about how it values the society above the individual. This is true some extent, and especially here: As other pointed out, this is beneficial to society - I'm sure you'll agree the main problem that drugs cause society is crime, which is often related to the fact that people who are addicted need money to buy their drugs. This money also gives power to the criminals who sell the drugs.
However, it is not very beneficial to the individual. It does keep him out of trouble, and lets him keep his money and maybe have a chance to put his life in order. However, it doesn't solve the underlying problem of the addiction. And that's why this doesn't sit well with me: it represents both a surrender - giving up hope of ever curinging a person of their addiction - and a cold calculation of the values of lives - letting a person continue their self-destructive behaviour while protecting only the society around them.
Addiction is a heavy thing, though. There is a reason why even mostly secular self-help groups like AA (sounds funny on here even when I spell it out, heh) rely on some kind of deity in their programs to help the addict overcome his habitual void.
First of all, one needs tremendous willpower to go through live sober forevermore, once while he still is addicted, to take "the first step" and then for the rest of his life. Some programs are better than others in this regard, but I still think it's a good thing that there is an alternative way for people who simply cannot commit to what is required to kick the habit for good.
That's true, but there's still an element of "well if you don't have what it takes, then take this shit and go kill yourself, see if we care" to it.
>Doctors are not good law enforcers,
I agree
>they tend to err on the "I want to help no matter what" side.
was that sarcasm?
>> 16
bubu, you don't think that doctors tend to "want to help no matter what"?
thats been my personal experience with doctors.
also, whats with the economic approach to the value of an addict's life in >> 10?
here's a question bubu: its got to be cheaper to give a thief the money in a convenience store register than to pay cops to come get him, process him, put him in a holding cell, feed him, light and plumb his cell, provide him with a lawyer, try him, and then store him in a prison with free room and board for some period of time, don't you think?
should, therefore, convenience stores give out free money to anyone with a gun, and the government just reimburse them?
>was that sarcasm?
More like a feeble attempt at an explanation why the fuck a doctor would give deadly poisons to his patients. He is supposed to cure them, not to kill them.
oops. i forgot to include my point in the previous post. i think its obvious but sometimes people misinterpret me.
all crimes, even crimes against property, transgress against the social contract. law enforcement is not merely a process of renumeration and prevention, even when total renumeration is possible. society has an incentive to reduce crime, by instilling ethics, through negative reinforcement.
>>18
ghhh, right. "Conhecimento do Inferno" by António Lobo Antunes [tries to] answers this question rather excellently. One of the best pieces of 20th century literature by the way.
>>17,19
About the doctors: Please excuse my reluctance, but I think that's quite a stray from the topic and I don't want to bog it down with a T.I.R. post about doctors.
Your other points:
>whats with the economic approach...
>>1 's main complaint was the "taxpayer's dime" being wasted, which is inherently wrong when looking at the actual figures, which I duly provided. I did neither endorse nor repudiate the philosophy of estimating a method's value by its monetary consequences, I simply tried to bring some substance into my post, however unusual that may be!
Therefore, however intelligent your question and consecutive conjecture may be (and they are), it's a miscarried argument, because I never stated anything to the contrary (or anything expressing my opinion on the matter at all); maybe you should argue with >>1 about this issue.
I do get what you're trying to say, but I should point out that much of a doctor's job consist of giving deadly poisons to his patients. It's all about dosage.
I don't know what to think about the program itself, but anything that reduces the spread of diseases is fine by me. It's also nice they won't be leaving used syringes everywhere.
AIDS is a major problem faced by all societies. Potentially removing one of the vectors can only be beneficial. Reduced crime is only a side-benefit (although I doubt it'll make much difference).
BTW, I disagree that a social safety net makes people lazy. Even in the most generous of Western societies the amount given is only sufficient for a decent level of survival, minus any luxuries.
How many people like living with no luxuries? Maybe if you're so poorly educated that any menial work you do will only amount to what you receive from the government would you not bother working. But that's a problem of expensive education, something a more socialized system doesn't suffer from.
To clarify my views on needle exchange programs and methadone treatment, I really don't think taxpayers should be paying for those either. However, they are both less objectionable than actually doling out heroin itself; especially methadone, as it is often a step "down" for addicts who can't quit cold turkey.
>>6: Cute. But if you're trying to say that the clergy of an often-violent religion speaking out against violence is anywhere near the level of helping heroin addicts stay stoned and addicted, you're nuts.
>>11: See any proper socialist country before capitalistic reforms. Or hell, see California... until recent reforms, my sister, a single mom, intentionally stayed unmarried and unemployed, even though she had kids to support, because she could make more from unemployment that way than she could have on an entry-level job. If you could choose between working and getting paid or not working and getting paid, which would you choose? I like your point in >>13, though.
>>17: Good argument.
>>20: I don't object so much to tax money being used to help drug addicts; though, like just about everything, I think private groups could do a better job at it (recall the part in The Autobiography of Malcolm X wherein he talks about how his group was highly successful in helping addicts get off their stuff cold-turkey with some good ol' fashioned tough love). I just think this is a piss-poor way to help addicts, as it does little to actually help them; I think it's much more logical to get smack addicts to stop shooting stuff in the first place instead of merely helping them shoot stuff more safely. Really, am I way off base on that? It makes perfect sense to me.
Saged on accident, so... bump
> it's a miscarried argument
good point bubu. that is what i get for not reading more carefully!
> how many people like living with no luxuries?
this reminds me of something slightly off-topic i was thinking about the other day. in the first quarter of the 20th century your average american street walker was selling herself because she couldn't buy food. in the last quarter, she was selling herself to buy crack cocaine.
it reminds me of a bit from wealth of nations, where smith was talking about the relativity of poverty. the poorest englishman being better off than the richest african, and all that. why is it that the worth of a woman's body, of human dignity itself, is relative too?
i can imagine having sex with random sleazebags to avoid starvation. i can't imagine having sex with random sleazebags in exchange for recreational drugs.
>>23
I was trying to hint at the fact that those, often belligerent, killer-phrases ("if [you disagree], you're nuts", "No matter how many words you try to put to this, there's simply no arguing that this is a positive thing.") you sometimes inadvertently let slip into your posts aren't very productive and somewhat throttle the discussion. I thought a good-spirited, lighthearted paraphrase was more bearable and acceptable than some outright rude/inflammatory remark. 's all.
>i can imagine having sex with random sleazebags to avoid starvation. i can't imagine having sex with random sleazebags in exchange for recreational drugs
most junkies would give the exact same answer, only reversed by 180°.
> Really, am I way off base on that? It makes perfect sense to me.
Well, there is only one way to find out. We gotta hook you up on the crank, you silly goose.
>I was trying to hint at the fact that those, often belligerent, killer-phrases ("if [you disagree], you're nuts", "No matter how many words you try to put to this, there's simply no arguing that this is a positive thing.") you sometimes inadvertently let slip into your posts aren't very productive and somewhat throttle the discussion.
I never use such phrases inadvertently.
> See any proper socialist country before capitalistic reforms. Or hell, see California... until recent reforms, my sister, a single mom, intentionally stayed unmarried and unemployed, even though she had kids to support, because she could make more from unemployment that way than she could have on an entry-level job.
Those are not sources you cited there. Show me numbers and data, and then I'll consider your statements as more than just your own opinions and prejudices.
> If you could choose between working and getting paid or not working and getting paid, which would you choose?
And this argument has little or nothing to do with the reality of social security and unemployment.
>> 30
i think you're being harsh waha. personally i agree with you, but you have to be intelligent enough to know that most welfare systems are broken enough that in some situations they are preferable to working. anyways, here are your damn dirty statistics:
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/stats.htm
(i'm paraphrasing): 80% of poor 2 parent canadian families not on welfare make 15,000$ a year. by comparison, the average 2 parent canadian family makes 86,000$ a year.
its hard to find the average amount received per family, but if you take the amount given to all families from this table: 219,705,000,000
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-000096/table1.shtml
aka 219 billion dollars, aka 21.92% of the canadian gdp (don't believe me? go to the link, i could be reading the table wrong).
# of families receiving benefits, as of this table: 3,213,513
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab106e.shtml
219,705,000,000 / 3,213,513 = 68,369.
what this means is that accounting for all social benefits in canada (its hard to say what % of canada receives some. pop. = 32 million, but how many "people" is 3.2 million families? its a good guess to say that about 20% of canadians receive some benefits, i think), takes an average of 68 thousand canadian dollars to administer and provide, per family.
what services this includes, according to the first website:
aboriginal assistance, job training, education savings funds, student loans, employment insurance, "income security programs", adoption services, anti-homelessness initiative, literacy initiative, "new horizons for seniors", day care programs, food assistance, and unemployment assistance.
the reason i wrote out that long list is because i wanted to head off any suggestiosn that 20% of gdp is a fine price to pay for unemployment + free healthcare. note though, that this does not include healthcare, or education, those are seperate departments. so 22% of gdp is consumed before education, defense, or healthcare are considered.
I do not disagree that you can always find extreme cases where someone's happened upon a set of circumstances that gives him or her more benefits than they might fairly deserve, as designing a system like this to be perfectly fair is near impossible. I don't think such cases are an argument for or against anything, as long as they are sufficiently few (and if they are not, the system should be modified to remove them). Far too many arguments are, however, based on such extreme examples that have little bearing on the average case.
What I was arguing against was this:
> The same applies in countries where unemployment benefits are easily obtained, many people just become flaky with their employment with the full knowledge that the taxpayer can clean up their ignorance.
Emphasis mine - I want to see numbers that support that "many people" do not want to work if they receive unemployment benefits. And that's "do not want to work" as opposed to "are not able to find work", although I'll admit this is harder to quantify.
I don't understand what isn't making sense to you, WAHa, so let me try simplifying it as much as possible; If it is possible for someone to collect welfare and in doing so collect nearly as much as, if not more, money than they would collect by working full-time, their incentive to seek employment is greatly reduced. Do you not agree?
You ask me for stats -- what do you want the stats to say? The argument I make above doesn't need stats; merely logic.
I agree, but I say this happens nowhere (except maybe in a isolated extreme cases). I want stats to show that this has actually happened somewhere.
I find this unsettling. When did it become part of the social contract that the government ought to use the tax money that it extorts from productive people at gunpoint to help people destroy themselves with drugs?
If I were in Soviet Canuckistan, I'd be pretty outraged right now. I'm shaking my head sadly at all of them from across the border.
> the tax money that it extorts from productive people
We've already been through this which you imply.
> to help people destroy themselves with drugs
There is no "destruction". There are teams of doctors, social workers, psychologists, etc. that make sure the addicts won't die (from overdosing or other causes), that they won't get more addicted than they already are, etc.
> The argument I make above doesn't need stats; merely logic.
Enter KANT
KANT Pure reason surely is the most singular phenomenon of human reason and a very powerful agent to arouse philosophy from
its dogmatic slumber and to stimulate it to the arduous
task of undertaking a critique of reason itself. But the Transcendental Dialectic clearly shows that pure reasoning itself (or "logic", as you prefer to call it) cannot give knowledge of what lies beyond the limits of sense experience (which would, in a scientific context, ammount to the "stats" WAHa requested from you).
Exit
If that low-life Kant just agreed with me, I'm gonna fucking slap him.
Your tone suggests you are merely trolling, but I'll bite: Would you rather have your extorted money spent dealing with and cleaning up after the crime caused by these people being forced to pay exorbitant sums to crime lords for their drugs? Would you rather they hold you up at gunpoint to extort some further money off you for the same purpose?
>When did it become part of the social contract that the government ought to use the tax money that it extorts from productive people at gunpoint to help people destroy themselves
Like I said before, I'm not advocating the programme itself, but that argument is rather silly. The same argument could easily be modelled to abolish roads ("uses tax money to help people destroy themselves with cars"), the military ("uses tax money to help people destroy themselves with guns"), the health system (various ataractics are destructive as all hell, people often leave the hospital more destroyed than they enter it). It's no more aimed at helping people destroy themselves than roads or medical treatment (okay, probably pretty horrible examples right there).
>If that low-life Kant just agreed with me, I'm gonna fucking slap him...
...quoth !WAHa the Schopenhauerist.
EXEUNT
>> 40
your examples are horrible because the overwhelming majority of people leaving hospitals, the military, and highways are in the same or better condition than when they entered it. :P
heroin use on the other hand, doesn't improve you.
> would you rather they hold you up at gunpoint
so are you suggesting that there is a quantity of heroin you can give an addict after which point they're not going to crave heroin anymore? i've only ever known people addicted to cocaine and amphetamines, and people addicted to those drugs never have "enough".
i can't imagine that the canadian system really reduces criminal acts related to heroin use.
my position on the statistics argument
its boring, ok? its not like we're trying to make sound policy decisions here. 95% of politics is money, but i almost never see anyone on this board discussing fiscal policy. instead we discuss ethics, philosophy, and insane conspiracy theories. if you can't see the rationality in your opponents argument, then say so. the stupid part is, waha and albright agree that albright's argument is valid, they just don't agree that the premises are true. waha wants statistics, albright offers anecdotes, waha rejects them as such, but all statistics are anecdotal anyway. its just boring.
>your examples are horrible because the overwhelming majority of people leaving hospitals, the military, and highways are in the same or better condition than when they entered it. :P
Mmm, that would make for a pretty fine topic of discussion in its own right, you know. I'm quite convinced of the opposite.
> so are you suggesting that there is a quantity of heroin you can give an addict after which point they're not going to crave heroin anymore? i've only ever known people addicted to cocaine and amphetamines, and people addicted to those drugs never have "enough".
No, I am suggesting that if you give it to them for free, they don't need to steal your money to pay for it.
I said earlier that it doesn't sit well with me either to let them destroy themselves, but the benefit to society is pretty obvious.
> i can't imagine that the canadian system really reduces criminal acts related to heroin use.
Is there some criminal act realted to heroin use that I do not know of, besides crimes committed to get money to buy heroin, and crimes committed by those who illegally sell heroin?
> 42
oh really?
i'd make a seperate topic to continue that discussion but i can't even think of how to phrase it as a question. if you make one to talk about it i'll come though.
> 43
you keep acting as if you believe that you can give heroin addicts enough heroin that they don't want it any more. the program in question doesn't give them heroin whenever they want it, they give it to them in small, scheduled doses. no addict i've ever met would settle for that. they'd get their free doses, and they'd get what they could on the side too.
furthermore, heroin like most poisons is reduced in effectiveness with increased usage. the more of it you use, the more of it you need to get the same effect.
i hypothesize that the people on the scheduled dosage program are just as likely to commit crimes to get the money to pay for their heroin as the heroin addicts who are not on the program.
Well I'll admit I didn't read up on the details. That might make it less effective, but it might have other effects - driving the street price down, for one, which would probably be good for those involved.
(We could go off on a tangent on how US War On Drugs is really aimed at driving prices up, which benefits nobody but the sellers, but that's also for another thread, I suppose.)
Ye gods. Yes, it's appropriate to reward junkies instead of punishing them. Meh.
I'm starting to think that we need to import the surplus barbed wire from the Iron Curtain and fortify the northern border.
> Yes, it's appropriate to reward junkies instead of punishing them.
y hello thar, mr social darwinist
I reserve my compassion for people whose problems aren't self-created. Let them all get AIDS--the streets will be safer when they become too weak to throw grandmothers down stairwells to steal their food stamps.
Junkies didn't need help to start using drugs, so why do they need help to stop?
Except that AIDS doesn't care if you're a junkie or not.
If junkies have a high incidence of AIDS, it'll spread to the normal population eventually. It's also cheaper to help them shoot up then it is to give them medical care as they take several years to die.
> too weak to throw grandmothers down stairwells to steal their food stamps
roffle roffle. Nice try.
> I reserve my compassion for people whose problems aren't self-created.
Meh. Society gets the criminals it deserves.
> I reserve my compassion for people whose problems aren't self-created.
That's some pretty weak compassion you've got there. What other conditions do you put on people before allowing yourself to feel compassion for them?
"Waah, waah, gimme free dope 'cause I'm a VICTIM!"
I'm a sex addict. Can I get some free whores from the government?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7948681
Some 70,000 Russians -- close to 200 people a day -- die from drug overdoses,
The figures illustrate the shocking rate of unnatural deaths in Russia, which recorded 46,000 suicides and 36,000 murders last year.
High disease and crime rates and low birth rates have slashed Russia's population since the fall of the Soviet Union to less than 145 million from 152 million.
With one million users, Russia is Europe's biggest heroin market, a U.N. report said last year. Drug abuse has also propelled the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, with more than 250,000 people infected across the country, according to U.N. figures for 2003.
"The speed of the disease's spread is alarming," said Mikhailov.
Hah. When you hear the sexual habits of the young Russian generation, you begin to seriously wonder if they won't all be dying in a few years.
Perhaps drug abuse has propelled the spread of HIV, but fucking without condoms, ever, sure won't help from here on.
Luckily, other parts of the world are fiercely committed to changing the sexual habits of their youth.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=592661