I'm sure you have equally-unworthy reason for existance.

TJP: Yep, let's just kill them all, even the one that contracted the disease by accident. Too bad too sad, you are going to die anyway, so off with your head.

/Sarc

TJP sometimes compassion can go along way. I really hope you were kidding, even though suggesting to kill people is not a joke.

You know, it's really hard for me to understand an S. O. B. like yourself. Maybe your just a wise-ass kid? Maybe you've never had to work a day in your life. Whatever. But in my many years on this earth, I've learned that no good comes from viewing people's problems with the dispassionate smugness you demonstrate. Furthermore, there are people who are trying to make a better life for people whose wretched existence I can only imagine.

This I do know. KaRMa is a very attentive lady. And she often sends insurmountable problems to those who take no pity on others. So before you wind up with cancer, or your kid gets killed by a car while crossing the street, or you lose your eyesight doing some stupid home repair, why not take a moment to give thanks for all you have, and show some compassion towards those far less fortunate.

Get real. This wretched existence is one of their own making. They don't deserve help and they sure as hell don't deserve my hard earned money. My compassion has been used up by 40 years of SOCIALISM.

TJP: genocide always sounds good before it actually happens ;P. Plus, with our revolving politicians/two party system you never know which group in power will put you on the "to kill" list.

Ben: there's no such thing as "Karma," at least not in the manner of some all-seeing arbiter of good and bad fortune that makes sure everyone gets what they deserve. I cite the bailout.

Patricia: the junkies aren't responsible for socialism.

That being said, this program may help with health but also creates a LEGAL meeting place for intravenous drug users that, unlike addicts that meet at methadone clinics or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, have no intention of stopping using. Therefore it not only facilitates the continued use of these drugs but also provides a place where they can "network": make contacts for buying and selling drugs in the greater metropolitan area. I imagine it totally fvck's up the neighborhood too, like a casino only worse.

I agree kill them all. Let them all have a massive overdose. I have been a victim of criminal drug addicts many times. Members of my family have been murdered by drug addicts. Their lives are worthless and the cost is beared by .taxpayers

this program may help with health but also creates a LEGAL meeting place for intravenous drug users that, unlike addicts that meet at methadone clinics or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, have no intention of stopping using

Actually, the article does say the program has been instrumental in directing more addicts into treatment.

What don't people get about the fact that this program is paying dividends, not just to the addicts themselves, but to the community at large? Isn't it worth investing in a program that (from the article) saves many times over its own expenses in long-term disease prevention, directs addicts toward treatment and away from addiction, cuts violence and reduces the spread of dangerous infectious needles on public streets? Forget the benefits to the addicts, if you're convinced they are worth nothing more than death. This program is still worthwhile in its benefits to society as a whole.

Karma is real and I have seen it work. What comes around does go around and we may not be there to see it, but it does. I only hope that all you folks with no compassion never need any for yourselves.

OK Ron, you have been a victim many times and several of your family memebrs have been murdered? Sorry if I don't believe you. You either are lying, or you need to stop subjecting yourself to that enviroment.

The cost of doing nothing has been far more than actually helping addicts.

I was never so embarrassed for this country as I was when Reagan refused to provide any funding for AIDS research and treatment. All of those years wasted when research could have advanced. I read that between 5000-6000 men died during that period.

As far as the same spot for addicts to shoot--fine, but you draw dealers out the a$$, lurking outside your doors to sell.

As far as the same spot for addicts to shoot--fine, but you draw dealers out the a$$, lurking outside your doors to sell.

Sounds like they sited this pilot project in an area that was already bristling with dealers anyway. Of course, you solve that problem too by implementing the solution Henry III mentions in #8, below, which I've also been touting for years, and against which I have yet to see a cogent counterargument.

Dave--I read it and it just makes too much sense. I had an acquaintance that was heavily addicted to various opium derivatives. After years of heavy use/addiction, he went to a methadone clinic. He started living a productive life and did for the remainder of years that I kept in touch with him. The 'war on drugs' was a silly waste. Non-violent offenders were thrown in prison with violent offenders and their lives were forever changed.

Blue Rose--I agree. I think people find it particularly cool and cruel when they scoff at those in need. I hope I never get that cynical.

You're right TJ!

The Christian fundamentalists within my party will never let any program that remotely resembles this to pass. Even if there is a majority support from the country, the Democrats will back off at the first sign of confrontation, with the neo-conservatives stirring up the social conservative base by grossly exaggerating the dangers such site will poss to the local communities.

I have hope that eventually Americans will get sick of the same old policies towards addiction prevention and treatment not working that we will one day see change. Unfortunately, I feel it is a long way off.

Yes, my sons know that if I ever catch them using drugs I will personally put bullett in their brains. Its wrong, its illegal and it destroys what the decent people on this planet strive to create. If you use illicit drugs, you're a low life and you don't deserve COMPASSION. They started this on their own, they can finish it on their own.

Patricia, you don't know what compassion means, as it has nothing to do with what a person deserves. You sound like a crazy monster and I hope your kids learn to get far away from you at the earliest possible moment. People like you deserve to have bullets put in their brains.

Great Patricia, do me a favor? Next time they drink alcohol, or take aspirin, or perchance take some sudafed, post some pictures of their dead bodies, mmk?

Liar.

If you use illicit drugs, you're a low life and you don't deserve COMPASSION

If you're a drug war zealot, you're a lowlife, and you don't deserve compassion. The 'War on Drugs' is an unmitigated, inarguable DISASTER, in every sense of the word. More people have died, been raped, been imprisoned or otherwise suffered BECAUSE of the incredibly counter-productive 'War on Drugs!'

patricia, you are a despicable excuse for a human being. who are you to say what is right or wrong? you dont know these people, what theyve been through, or why theyve ended up at this point. for you to pass judgement on them with no background is pathetic. i feel sorry for your kids and the @!$%# they must have to put up with living with you

I sincerely hope that you don't call yourself a Christian. Karma is coming for you, patricia and it will be a b*tch when it gets you. Better hope you never need the compassion of someone someday.

" I will personally put bullett (sic) in their brains."

Let me guess, Tea Party Republican?

beebobby, no need to guess.

I had a father who was a drug addict... died not from drugs but from another accident while he was sober... Patricia are you saying that someone should have shot him instead? people like you should think before speaking... what if it was your parent?

Or what about innocent children that are born with addiction ferom their mother, or are born HIV positive?? Should they be killed as well?

It is not just the righteous, imperious attitude; the "war" has evolved into a huge business with trillions of Federal dollars galore handed over to local and state police, prison construction. Lawenforcement, the courts, and the legal profession, excuse me, legal trade, do not want to kill the golden goose. It's the last of the monster federal domestic programs still labeled a "war." The "war on poverty" and all the others I have long forgotten with the title of (social) "war" have disappeared long after LBJ and Dick Nixon named them. It's virtually impossible to wean a monster like this from Uncle Stupid.

Jamie, that's exactly what I came here to say. The "War on Drugs" is a product of many Americans' obsession with short-sighted, self-righteous Old Testament vengeance against everyone who's not just like them (just see some of the venom spewed on this board). Many (not all) drug addicts did indeed create their own problems, but why are people so willing to spend the colossal amounts of money to incarcerate them, instead of spending comparatively paltry sums to get them cleaned up and contributing to society? If this were an economic issue, people would be supporting programs like this in droves. It's not economic; it's a disgusting desire to punish and hurt people for making choices we don't agree with. We just can't afford that attitude any more. Let's stop wasting money with a "war" on our citizens, and start saving money by treating their addictions instead.

Yeah, the War on Drugs is all about big money, it has NOTHING to do with actually winning the drug war. Our politicians cling on to the puritan beliefs and fool the majority of americans to do so, but they shouldn't be allowed to fool us because they don't worship religion - they only worship wealth and power.

This type of thinking is the only way the North American cultures and their economies are going to survive in this ever changing world. no longer can you be secure in the fact that you will have a job and be able to make a modest living. our countries have become insecure and restless we are not making smart decision to propel us forward as leaders in economic and social growth. North America has it all we are large, have vast amount of resources, peaceful relationships, good economic and political ties to each each other , yet we are standing still in the world when it comes to our economic and social growth. why is this ? well one reason is that we are not thinking into the future about what is most sustainable and beneficial for our growth and prosperity. instead, we are hanging on to these old man ways that will leave us no were but broke and in social chaos.

The "war on drugs" isn't about eradicating drug use. It's about profiting from it as much as possible. Prohibition creates black markets that enrich dealers of all levels, including the CIA (Google 'CIA cocaine airplane down', for an eye opener). It's good business for prisons, police departments, bloated state and federal agencies. It's good for Big Pharma, which can sell its legal product, but only after you've gone through the medical-industrial complex and received "prescription" from some goon in a white coat.

Of course, because ANYTHING drug related is essentially like killing someone, right?

R A S - that comment is so ignorant and stupid its unbelievable. maybe you and that pyscho bitch patricia can be friends...

Sorry, I must have interrupted a snort, or else you need to look up the word "sarcasim" !

you were comparing this candian program to hypothetical drunk driving and murder zones. i understood your comment. i know you think it was sarcastic and witty, but it was actually just ignorant and stupid

Papa. Stupid is doing drugs and not getting rehab. Rehab is not easy, but no other way out.

Stupid is waging a war on our citizens, at a vastly higher cost (in economic and human terms) than approaching the issue as a public-health problem and minimizing the harm to all involved.

Oh, and "sarcasim" isn't a word.

you dont know these people, what theyve been through, and why theyve reached this point in their lives. my bet is that they are not all "stupid", there is often much more to an addiction. the more you comment the more you prove how uninformed and ignorant you are

No RAS, stupid is assuming that what the DEA and ONDCP tells you are the truth. Stupid is assuming that anyone who USES drugs, is also ABUSING. There is a VAST difference, especially where cannabis and cocaine are concerned (Heroin and meth are just wickedly addictive in any form, as is tobacco)

MANY MANY people USE cannabis, but are NOT addicted. They hold jobs, pay bills, pay taxes, own homes, raise children. They are JUST LIKE THE REST OF AMERICA, but for the incredibly ignorant and inaccurate rhetoric of those who swallow their government's assertions about how 'dangerous' cannabis is, when in fact it's the 'War on Drugs' that introduces virtually EVERY dangerous aspect of using cannabis. Imprisonment, robbery (don't get help up by the liquor store buying alcohol, do we?), dirty product, etc....

Cannabis is less physically addictive than CAFFEINE, and less lethal than ASPIRIN. The REAL danger is government run amuk, and you seem to be all for it.

And I agree rehab is a FAR better place for ADDICTS. Prison doesn't do anything but make drug users into much more hardcore criminals. Prison doesn't reform, it only punishes and educates.

I admit I am hard on my kids. I expect good grades, no drugs and they know they have no such thing as privacy in my house. I am their mother and here to protect them. That is my job. I also will do random drug testing.

However, if they are caught doing drugs I would help them not harm them. I would be looking for a rehab center not a bullet, like the Patricia. I don't believe that I have ever heard any parent say something so disgusting.

Everyone of us will need help at sometime. I hope we all get the same amount of help that we give. Patricia, by the way you have presented yourself here today, I do believe you may not have much help coming your way.

Yea--we should also give free cars to all carjackers. And free money to all street robbers. And set up government run houses of prostitution. (Sarcasim intended).

No, Stupid, that would cost a lot of money and do no good. What I propose would save a huge amount of money (perpetually) and save millions of people from the horrors of addiction. As I said, one obstacle is the evil aversion of "conservatives" to any government program that would actually help anyone other than the rich sponsors of the GOP. Fortunately, the Canadians now seem to be enough more enlightened than the USA to actually begin to end the drug nightmare.

BW, your analogies make no sense. Regardless of your personal indignation at the addicts' choices, drug addiction is, by definition, a medical problem. People aren't driven by a physical need to carjack or rob people, other than insofar as they use those means to get illegal drugs. Henry III is right on the money, and I've been saying the same thing for years. Rather than lamely snarking at his proposal, why not tell us the practical reasons you think it wouldn't WORK? Let me guess - you have no ideas to offer, only vengeance and hate.

BW is right on the money ! So, the "people" are no longer to be responsible for their own actions. I think I will go into the "pacifier" business and pacify these irresponsible people. Grow up and be a responsible adult. Hey, maybe we can send them all to AZ and fence it off.

R A S: Arizona is a haven for right-wing wack jobs. I suggest we send the rest of you there and THEN fence it off.

In the meantime, I would really like to hear constructive solutions from people who oppose safe injection sites, including specific, realistic proposals that would be more effective than safe injection sites at combating the social ills of addiction. "Kill them all" or "lock them up" aren't solutions, they're sick fantasies; the latter isn't working, and the former wouldn't happen even if Republicans had a supermajority. If you aren't part of the solution, but you're still yapping on the subject, you're part of the problem.

Really good writing and logical.

The problem is that we're faced with a moral dilemma (yes, "we," societal problems affect all of us). Clearly offing the addicts is ridiculous, and to propose it shows very immature, shallow, even sick thinking. Providing a safe place for addicts to shoot up is not only humane, it is cost effective. As the article states, $50 million spent on AIDS prevention means $300 million saved in not having to treat AIDS patients.

While $1+ trillion of experience shows that interdiction is NOT a solution, decriminalizing drugs, or otherwise providing them legally has its problems, too. The number of addicts increased when the UK provided drugs to certified addicts. However, this was probably, and I say probably because I have never seen figures, offset by a decrease in drug related crime. Too, that more people became addicted even though the program was for existing addicts only, showed that there was still some drug activity on the street, so even the most drastic of measures, the government supplying the drug is not a cure all.

However, if the hundreds of millions spent each year on interdiction was spent on education and rehabilitation, any minor activity on the street wouldn't matter that much.

While I am not bothered by the government doling out drugs to addicts, it does bother me that, in the case of a blanket decriminalization (and this is where the dilemma comes in), the number of addicts could increase exponentially. Narcotics (and I am not including marijuana), are compelling, and I speak from experience. People start using them for a variety of reasons: to rebel against parents or society, self-medication, peer pressure, to be "cool" (a form of peer pressure), to escape from unbearable circumstances, curiosity and to just simply feel good. There is no doubt in my mind, while government bans are ineffective in curbing the problems of existing addicts, I am not at all sure that making the acquisition of narcotics difficult doesn't prevent many people from starting to use them.

On the other hand, free availability would stop the drug lord business, and the murders and other crimes that massive drug smuggling and wholesale dealing that a strict ban causes.

What to do? I don't think there is a simple answer. Certainly not killing addicts, and not necessarily a blanket lifting of all restrictions on the acquisition of narcotics. So, let's stop the bull@!$%# and have a reasonable discussion.

famousperson: Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful post.

more people became addicted even though the program was for existing addicts only

I am not familiar with the British program to which you refer, but I would be interested in the details of how the drugs were provided. I recall reading about a similar program in, maybe, Scandinavia, in which the drugs were provided only at the injection center, and had to be consumed on-site by registered users. I remember one statistic from that program: that during the period studied, the average age of addicts began rising at the rate of approximately 11 months per year. That means that few new people were coming into the system; in other words, that the program was drastically reducing the number of new addicts. I just can't imagine that such a system wouldn't work if administered on a large enough scale to catch a large majority of addicts. It would destroy the street market, and if the injection center were, practically speaking, the only place to acquire the drugs, then it's hard to imagine young people registering as addicts in order to try a drug for the first time. I'll try and look into the program you mention, because if I'm wrong, I want to know I'm wrong (unlike many on this board). I just suspect that it's a case of the devil residing in the details.

You can find studies published online about Portugal and the results of decriminilization there. It also reports lower incidents of drug use.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal

well I can't lay it out any better than henry but i can say we should add the education and social understandings and changes outlined in the film "Moving forward" found for free here http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ even if you do not agree with the whole of their solution it'a a good direction to think in and a way to start. If you wish to see and be part of a REAL CHANGE in the world, Join the movement http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/ and "like" the face book.

Treating social problems is a start but we must start sooner in peoples lives and go allot further to see a world everyone could prosper in.

Read #8 above.

Yes. What Henry III said.

If this continues, we'll become a society of mindless zombies laying all over the place.

That's the same argument people use about homosexuals: that if we do anything that looks like legitimizing their behavior, WE'LL ALL TURN INTO THEM!! News flash: I don't support gay rights because I want to be gay; I support gay rights because it's the right thing to do. Nothing will make me stop preferring women, just as nothing will make me want to be a junkie. Minimizing the risk of death from an activity doesn't cause the activity to become more widespread. Quite to the contrary, in programs such as Henry describes, addiction rates actually drop, along with the costs to society.

You have no practical ideas to offer; therefore, your angry little screed contributes nothing to the discussion.

You are right, Raymond. It is tragic that our nation is immobilized by the political extremes. The only governments that ever served their people well were centrist, pragmatic, secular governments that tried to do as much good as possible without causing undue harm. But, only extremists get elected, so our governance is rendered ineffective by the stalemate. So, unfortunately, everything is about the right and the left. Both are dangerous, and fundamentally treasonous. Citizens of democracies are ethically and morally deficient to the extent of their political extremism.

Totally. It's unbearable sometimes.

And no righteous vengeance from the self-appointed moral arbiters of other people's behavior. Of course, those are often the same people as the rich and powerful (which is why these discussions become polarized on ideological lines: it's thoughtful, rational compassion versus fire-and-brimstone thoughtless anger, just like any other divisive issue in American politics).

I think it's obvious that these addicts were encouraged because of Obama's smoking habit.

That's because it was George Bush's fault. ;)

Whoops - that last line was supposed to say "Plus, there is WAY too much money being thrown around in the "War on Drugs" to stop now."

That's what happens when you smoking that chronic and typing at the same time .

what an ignorant comment. what the @!$%# do you know about canada? nothing, from the looks of your comment. if thats the case kindly shut the @!$%# up and stop putting down my country. you are uninformed about this program and canada in general. these addicts will continue to do drugs, so why not offer a program like this? preventing the spread of a disease like HIV/AIDS saves money for the health care system in the end. of course it is people like you that will stop such a sensible program from ever being instituted in the states

It would keep people off the streets and out of your pathetic little face. You should be happy for that, you won't have to see them or even think about them.

yeah, and there is probably cocaine and stripper poop on your dollar bills!!! lol

Proamerica-

That is exactly the point! If we work more toward rehabilation and less toward straight out "war" then the problems such as those in Mexico can be abated.

I am sure you will miss the point, so I will spell it out as if you as a fifth grader... By allowing "safe sites" to exist it attractes those that are within the grips of their disease (yes, it is a medically proven disease, the same as diabetes, schizophrenia, alzheimers, etc). By bringing in those that have this disease they will be more open to getting the treatment they need. This in turn, will also diminish the demand for drugs on the street. With the dimished demand, there will be a lower supply need and thus the black market will be impacted. This black market is supplied by such individuals within Mexico and the flow of money will also be diminished. Less money means less power, less power means less control, less control leads to less violence. See the point...

It all goes together, by treating those with this disease in an open and non-degrading fashion not only helps those in need but soceity as a whole. Including people that have a very closed mind on the subject. It will be out of sight and thus out of mind and, in the long run, as a bonus to those that do not have a clue...saves you money!

Exactly, people don't realize that these addicts are a direct byproduct of our society. We have an obligation as a society to try and correct it.

Absolutely Brett, I am pretty sure that the people with this disease did not wake up one morning and say, geez... I think I am going to become a drug addict and a drain on our society. Or, put heroin junkie on the top of their lists of "what they wanted to be when they grew up" in fifth grade.

It is a very complicated personal issue, one in which society as a whole contributed to their problem. We as a society have the obligation to help them if they are willing to accept it.

You are right on; I didn't wake up one Monday and decide I wanted to become an addict and lose everything I have (apt., job, car, wife, etc). I got hooked on meds after having them Rx'd to me following a bad car wreck and b4 I knew it, I was locked in to addiction. Even though Ive always known I have an addictive personality and addiction has a history in the family I figured I was fine, won't happen to me. I don't even like to drink that much. I don't do heroin, or any other illegal hard drug for that matter, but this "safe place" idea is the best solution to a problem w/ no winners. Ive known people just on pills that, had they a safe place to take their stuff (and Im just using pills as an example) , they wouldn't have been robbed and beaten, raped, rolled over on by another user and gone to jail, or scarred for life in some other way. I hate being an addict b/c it has cost me almost everything I ever cared about and made me a miserable person. Ive tried, but I can't just wake up and quit and move on like it never happened. A drug policy that recognizes the medical problem w/ the goal of helping a person and not just calling an addict an instant criminal is the only way to work on getting the drug problem under control.

wpgreen11 - I wish you luck with beating the addiction and my prayers are with you!

The real black hole is this... Anti-drug US policy creates our gang problem (they don't have any money without the drugs they sell) and it creates the border problem with Mexico where it is very violent. Our citizens still buy the product, but they have to get it through illegal channels that really aren't in the control of government. We try, but we can't control it. The only way to control the drug problem is to legalize a number of lighter drugs (pot, for example, should be very legal). Make penalties for harder drugs more akin to a ticket, not a sentence to a second class life due to a criminal record, and make hard drugs hard to get, but control the trade. The way you control the trade is through some legalization programs. Take the tax revenue from these sources and fund addiction programs, and it becomes a gov't program that is self sustaining. You can get rid of several problems with legalization: a funding source so that we have money available instead of raiding our income tax dollars to pay for it out of the general fund, control the trade instead of creating uncontrollable organized crimes and gangs, and making it safer for the end user with safe injection sites so public health is raised. It is proof - not textbook theory - that Vancouver has lowered HIV rates by allowing people to shoot up safely.

was his name rush?

Agreed. I have to chuckle a sad little chuckle at the people, like many on here, who vilify "drugs" as though it were all one substance. Reminds me of the old SNL skit where Dan Aykroyd carefully rolls a joint, then tries to jam it into a vein. The only things left supporting the "War on Drugs" are greed and ignorance. Greed, we can't cure, but I maintain hope that we can educate.

Chris: I agree, and would add that the only reason alcohol isn't visibly worse than those drugs (the only reason the danger is, as you put it, subtle) is that alcohol is legal. As a result, its purity and potency are regulated, unlike street drugs. Compare modern meth-heads to, say, President Kennedy. They're chasing the same feeling, but Kennedy was able to take legal, pharmaceutical speed, while meth is full of who-knows-what toxic stew of chemicals. During Prohibition, alcohol lost the protection of regulation, and how many thousands were blinded by the methanol in "bathtub gin?"

Of course, that's another argument the reich-wingers will use to keep street drugs illegal. Apparently it's more fun to watch someone tormented and poisoned, so the rest of us can revel in our imagined moral superiority (Patricia? You listening?), rather than allowing people to do what they're going to do anyway, while remaining more-or-less productive citizens.

The War on Drugs is just too damn costly. It's a luxury we can no longer afford.

i wouldnt belittle patricia's rationale, sarah palin might get mad at you for insulting the tea party and everything it stands for...

writing all of that cost you a few minutes of your life youll never get back

I'd rather my pot tax money to pay off nat'l debt not fund more safe sites, though the rehab clinics are acceptable. Though sadly it won't likely happen anytime soon.

Careful with that logic, Eugene. You're making waaay too much sense for this place.