yes they dont get it. i wish it was that easy.
Yes i am done with kratom. Thanks. It wasnt terrible. I conpleted it and have more motivation then ever.
Thanks.
edit got past the hard part. Havent taken any
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Addiction: What's up with that, yo?
- Thread starter MFAAS
- Start date
Yes i am done with kratom. Thanks. It wasnt terrible. I conpleted it and have more motivation then ever.
Thanks.
edit got past the hard part. Havent taken any
Bumpygooch
Well-known Member
What’s left out of the addiction equation is genetics. It’s a genetic predisposition as well as a weakness. I’ll explain using a personal anecdote. In your case, it appears your genetics have betrayed you, i.e, your brother and father were both addicts, yes? However, in regard to something like this, you would never know if you carried the gene unless you tried it. So, and at the risk of offending you, you were stupid to roll the dice by trying it in the first place, that was your choice, coupled with the genetic crap out. In my personal case, I can pop opioids like candy and basically get no response,nothing. I have no research to back this up, and I’ve looked into it unsuccessfully, but, there are those who are opioid resistant. I injured my back and went to the ER, I was given(I don’t know the dosage)syringe full of morphine, felt my face get warm, then nothing. Asked the nurse when it kicks in, it wasn’t working, she gave me another full syringe, again, face flush, nothing more. Asked again, she was alarmed that I was even still lucid. That amount of morphine had zero affect. Fast forward to post spine surgery. Took an oxycodone along with an OxyContin, then proceeded to drink 10 beers to see what would happen. Nothing. Point is, I have a house full of bottles of unused opioids due to the fact that they don’t work for me. So, my theory is that, while not necessarily a disease, there is certainly a genetic component to it.
Yes and this is why i really get this point accross to my brothers kids.
thats odd that happens for you. Is that just with opiates?
Bumpygooch
Well-known Member
To my knowledge, I’ve never used any illicit narcotics, which plays into my point about choice, so, my only experience is with the opioids. My surgeon who performed my recent shoulder surgery said he’s had other patients who are opioid resistant. My other theory on that is pain tolerance, specifically opioids in this case. Those with lower pain thresholds probably have a better(worse, depending on how you look at it) reaction to opioids as opposed to someone with a higher threshold of pain having a lesser reaction or basically resistant to opioids. Lost a friend to heroine that started as back injury with an opioid script, same as me, 2 different paths. Genetics.
your experience is the exception though to addiction, not the rule. best of luck.
the United States pharmaceutical industry has harmed more lives than it has saved IMO. Modern medicine is poison and the world would be a better place without it. look no further than any bodybuilding board at those addicted to takin BP meds while blasting away at 12 percent 225lbs full of water and distended gut
Methyl Mike
New Member
I remember when I was all about bodybuilding. 110% never less. No room for rec drugs. Unthinkable.
One day I wanted to fit in more than anything in the world. Social acceptance was all that seemed to matter. I was young, in high school. I started smoking pot, and stumbled on to some aspect of my intelligence that makes me great at anything I put my mind to. I wanted to get so high, higher than anyone ever dreamed.
One day I took a pill that sent me to heaven. I cant say I have actually been to heaven, but it probably feels like the first time I rolled. Luis vitton triple stack was the first x I did. It changed my life. I abandoned bodybuilding and decided to become a trance dj and chase girls. Not kidding.
Addiction to Recreational drugs are a fate I would not wish on anyone on this earth.
Congrats man, yes you did make it past the hard part...although sometimes...some days, it still is almost equally as hard. When you're having a bad day and you feel like "oh man if I just took a dose of kratom/oxy/morphine/whatever I would feel so much better!" or hell you just want to use because you have the strongest urge to get high. You sit there thinking your tolerance must be super low now and you'd get such a nice effect.
A few years back I quit kratom cold turkey and it was quite bad. Honestly I feel like the withdrawals from the adrenergic agonism of kratom is equally as bad as the actual opiate withdrawal. Most of us here could probably relate, we are GO-people. We want to go-go-go. Work out, hike, do cardio, meal prep, we are motivated. Nothing is harder than laying on the fucking couch barely even having the energy to get up and get food or being so lethargic you don't even wanna play video games. Anyway, I quit for an international trip where I didn't wanna risk taking kratom with me. Was clean for 6 weeks, then on my way home I got the flu and it was kicking my ass...I thought, oh I will take a little kratom to feel better then play some video games. So I took a dose and I got high as fuck. I felt amazing. My flu was gone immediately. Then I kept using after my flu went away, and was very quickly excaclty The euphoria and the glow was wonderful, I literally didn't even feel sick anymore.
Then I kept using, and kept using, for months more, and had to go through the same withdrawals all over again. So basically: be careful
I agree with you, a lot of people (more than ever now) have a genetic predisposition to addiction. They have alcoholism or other addictions in their family. Yes, some people are non-responders to opioids or even have stimulating effects from them, though the former is super rare, the latter is more common. I don't think that being a normal responder to opioids counts as a "genetic weakness" though, it is just part of being human (for 99.999% of people). However, obviously having a respond t opioid drugs does of course mean you could get hooked because you can feel the effects, versus someone who doesn't feel the effects--but again, this is really just part of being human.
I think your point about being stupid enough to try the drugs in the first place is more valid. However, maybe less so now, but especially 10 years ago most of the time kids trying these drugs were just taking their prescription from their doctor. I was so young and naive that I didn't even know what addiction was, I was just taking the oxy my doctor gave me because that's what you're supposed to do: listen to your doctor! Thankfully this has gotten much better now and opioids aren't prescribed like candy and there are no longer kickback programs for docs to prescribe opioid pills. I think that in middle school and high school health classes kids need to learn more about addiction. Unfortunately, most kids are so hard-headed at that age that they're gonna do what they're gonna do and there's really very little that could ever stop them.
I would disagree that his experience is the exception, personally. I went through a similar experience. My addiction, and honestly the majority of opioid addicts now, all tell a similar story: they were introduced to these highly euphoric drugs called opioids through their doctor. This is an EXTREMELY common story. People didn't go and say "hey I wanna try heroin today." They were on medication from their doctor and their tolerance got too high, or they started taking an extra pill here and there and running out early, then realized that Heroin is much cheaper than pills. Regardless, the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are the ones that lit the fire in people to use these drugs, because once they tried it and it took away their physical and/or mental pain and made them feel like everything is gonna be alright for a little while. Modern society makes people so fucking miserable, especially young folks like pre-teens and teens who are just emotionally and mentally wrecked by social media and the constant message that their life isn't as good as anyone else's and that they are less attractive, successful, not as smart, etc., etc. It's no wonder mental health issues have skyrocketed so high, addiction being one of them.
You talk about it like "oh, just don't use drugs and you wont get addicted." So nonchalant. I didn't touch marijuana until I was 18 years old. I never bought a drug off the street until I was 18. Like @Methyl Mike I had psychiatrists and doctors pumping me full of pain meds AND benzos (later that would shift to muscle relaxers, specifically soma which is the most euphoria/addictive of them all) as well as antidepressants, etc. From the time I was 13 all the way until i was 21 I had prescriptions for SOME addictive drug or another. For years it was xanax, and I would get hydrocodone (vicodin) every time I had a migraine. I developed bad back pain due to my scoliosis and they eventually prescribed me fucking fentanyl patches to wear 24/7 as well as carisoprodol (soma). Again, i was just taking what my doctor gave me. For someone predisposed to addiction, once they have taken that first dose and felt that rush/high, it will be in their head forever. Plus, kids and teenagers simply are incapable of comprehending the damage that their seemingly miniscule choice will cause. You are saying that all these 13-18 year olds should be wise enough and have the foresight to know that touching this drug will ruin their life later on? That is just unrealistic and unreasonable
I will say to your other comment: yes, yes, YES!!! I fucking hate big pharma. The US is only one of two countries where advertising prescription drugs is legal. The commercials saying "Do you feel sad? Ask your doctor about taking prozac for the rest of your life" are ILLEGAL in almost every other country in the world, as they should be. The makers of oxycontin were caught red handed PURPOSEFULLY getting people addicted to their pills. And all that happened is that they get fined. The business will be fined a few billion dollars, but decided to file for bankruptcy to avoid litigation and having to be accountable for the lives they destroyed. The Sackler family is still worth over $11 billion. They were fined $225 million dollars. This goes back to my point previously about the wealth gap. These people got rich off of destroying the lives of MILLIONS of other people and all they have to do is pay a fine that is equivalent to a mere 2% of their net worth? That is fucking STUPID! They were one of THE SINGLE BIGGEST influencers that caused the opioid epidemic in America that caused almost 50 thousand people to overdose in 2019.
This further supports my point about the wealth gap. People in this thread have said "oh, these business owners took a risk and now they get to reap the reward of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their personal wealth!". Really? I don't care how big a risk you take, how hard you work, NOBODY deserves that amount of money. I am fine with millionaires, or ten-millionaires. But Billions ARE a problem from an economic standpoint--this is proven to be true--and we should tax them more to help out the lower and middle class, or use their taxes to bolster the economy further by increasing infrastructure spending and perhaps fixing some of the 220,000 bridges that are in need of repair in the US? NOBODY else's taxes need to change, or hell some for the middle class could even go down if we increase the taxes for the 1%.
Regardless of what some people say, the wealth gap IS a massive problem and there is a strong correlation to wealth/socioeconomic status and addiction rates. The staggering and disgusting wealth gap is not sustainable, not healthy, and completely detrimental to society and our economy. 1% of the people hold 40% of the wealth! That damages the country and even the world. That is just a fact that is backed up by dozens and dozens of research studies and economists. So pardon me for suggesting these 1%ers get taxed more. It is so weird to me how defensive normal people get when we suggest taxing billionaires more, as though it would somehow hurt them (when in actuality it would help them and EVER OTHER person living in America). Perhaps we could implement 1 or two more tax brackets for people who make staggering amounts of money, or implement a capital gains tax bracket for people who make over 1 or 2 or 5 million dollars in capital gains in a year. I am throwing numbers out there as examples of course, economists can figure out exactly what the numbers and tax rates should be...but this NEEDS to be done if we want this country to last. I am way off topic now, this isn't an economics thread, this is about addiction. So yeah, sorry about that.
I agree all this is so true. Very relatable when you brain convinces you for a reason to take a substance again. Like lethargy, ill just take a little so i can get this stuff done today…tge brain is so extremely powerful, its so convincing. Like having the angel and devil on your shoulder in the cartoons. One saying dont and the other saying do.Congrats man, yes you did make it past the hard part...although sometimes...some days, it still is almost equally as hard. When you're having a bad day and you feel like "oh man if I just took a dose of kratom/oxy/morphine/whatever I would feel so much better!" or hell you just want to use because you have the strongest urge to get high. You sit there thinking your tolerance must be super low now and you'd get such a nice effect.
A few years back I quit kratom cold turkey and it was quite bad. Honestly I feel like the withdrawals from the adrenergic agonism of kratom is equally as bad as the actual opiate withdrawal. Most of us here could probably relate, we are GO-people. We want to go-go-go. Work out, hike, do cardio, meal prep, we are motivated. Nothing is harder than laying on the fucking couch barely even having the energy to get up and get food or being so lethargic you don't even wanna play video games. Anyway, I quit for an international trip where I didn't wanna risk taking kratom with me. Was clean for 6 weeks, then on my way home I got the flu and it was kicking my ass...I thought, oh I will take a little kratom to feel better then play some video games. So I took a dose and I got high as fuck. I felt amazing. My flu was gone immediately. Then I kept using after my flu went away, and was very quickly excaclty The euphoria and the glow was wonderful, I literally didn't even feel sick anymore.
Then I kept using, and kept using, for months more, and had to go through the same withdrawals all over again. So basically: be careful
I agree with you, a lot of people (more than ever now) have a genetic predisposition to addiction. They have alcoholism or other addictions in their family. Yes, some people are non-responders to opioids or even have stimulating effects from them, though the former is super rare, the latter is more common. I don't think that being a normal responder to opioids counts as a "genetic weakness" though, it is just part of being human (for 99.999% of people). However, obviously having a respond t opioid drugs does of course mean you could get hooked because you can feel the effects, versus someone who doesn't feel the effects--but again, this is really just part of being human.
I think your point about being stupid enough to try the drugs in the first place is more valid. However, maybe less so now, but especially 10 years ago most of the time kids trying these drugs were just taking their prescription from their doctor. I was so young and naive that I didn't even know what addiction was, I was just taking the oxy my doctor gave me because that's what you're supposed to do: listen to your doctor! Thankfully this has gotten much better now and opioids aren't prescribed like candy and there are no longer kickback programs for docs to prescribe opioid pills. I think that in middle school and high school health classes kids need to learn more about addiction. Unfortunately, most kids are so hard-headed at that age that they're gonna do what they're gonna do and there's really very little that could ever stop them.
I would disagree that his experience is the exception, personally. I went through a similar experience. My addiction, and honestly the majority of opioid addicts now, all tell a similar story: they were introduced to these highly euphoric drugs called opioids through their doctor. This is an EXTREMELY common story. People didn't go and say "hey I wanna try heroin today." They were on medication from their doctor and their tolerance got too high, or they started taking an extra pill here and there and running out early, then realized that Heroin is much cheaper than pills. Regardless, the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are the ones that lit the fire in people to use these drugs, because once they tried it and it took away their physical and/or mental pain and made them feel like everything is gonna be alright for a little while. Modern society makes people so fucking miserable, especially young folks like pre-teens and teens who are just emotionally and mentally wrecked by social media and the constant message that their life isn't as good as anyone else's and that they are less attractive, successful, not as smart, etc., etc. It's no wonder mental health issues have skyrocketed so high, addiction being one of them.
You talk about it like "oh, just don't use drugs and you wont get addicted." So nonchalant. I didn't touch marijuana until I was 18 years old. I never bought a drug off the street until I was 18. Like @Methyl Mike I had psychiatrists and doctors pumping me full of pain meds AND benzos (later that would shift to muscle relaxers, specifically soma which is the most euphoria/addictive of them all) as well as antidepressants, etc. From the time I was 13 all the way until i was 21 I had prescriptions for SOME addictive drug or another. For years it was xanax, and I would get hydrocodone (vicodin) every time I had a migraine. I developed bad back pain due to my scoliosis and they eventually prescribed me fucking fentanyl patches to wear 24/7 as well as carisoprodol (soma). Again, i was just taking what my doctor gave me. For someone predisposed to addiction, once they have taken that first dose and felt that rush/high, it will be in their head forever. Plus, kids and teenagers simply are incapable of comprehending the damage that their seemingly miniscule choice will cause. You are saying that all these 13-18 year olds should be wise enough and have the foresight to know that touching this drug will ruin their life later on? That is just unrealistic and unreasonable
I will say to your other comment: yes, yes, YES!!! I fucking hate big pharma. The US is only one of two countries where advertising prescription drugs is legal. The commercials saying "Do you feel sad? Ask your doctor about taking prozac for the rest of your life" are ILLEGAL in almost every other country in the world, as they should be. The makers of oxycontin were caught red handed PURPOSEFULLY getting people addicted to their pills. And all that happened is that they get fined. The business will be fined a few billion dollars, but decided to file for bankruptcy to avoid litigation and having to be accountable for the lives they destroyed. The Sackler family is still worth over $11 billion. They were fined $225 million dollars. This goes back to my point previously about the wealth gap. These people got rich off of destroying the lives of MILLIONS of other people and all they have to do is pay a fine that is equivalent to a mere 2% of their net worth? That is fucking STUPID! They were one of THE SINGLE BIGGEST influencers that caused the opioid epidemic in America that caused almost 50 thousand people to overdose in 2019.
This further supports my point about the wealth gap. People in this thread have said "oh, these business owners took a risk and now they get to reap the reward of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their personal wealth!". Really? I don't care how big a risk you take, how hard you work, NOBODY deserves that amount of money. I am fine with millionaires, or ten-millionaires. But Billions ARE a problem from an economic standpoint--this is proven to be true--and we should tax them more to help out the lower and middle class, or use their taxes to bolster the economy further by increasing infrastructure spending and perhaps fixing some of the 220,000 bridges that are in need of repair in the US? NOBODY else's taxes need to change, or hell some for the middle class could even go down if we increase the taxes for the 1%.
Regardless of what some people say, the wealth gap IS a massive problem and there is a strong correlation to wealth/socioeconomic status and addiction rates. The staggering and disgusting wealth gap is not sustainable, not healthy, and completely detrimental to society and our economy. 1% of the people hold 40% of the wealth! That damages the country and even the world. That is just a fact that is backed up by dozens and dozens of research studies and economists. So pardon me for suggesting these 1%ers get taxed more. It is so weird to me how defensive normal people get when we suggest taxing billionaires more, as though it would somehow hurt them (when in actuality it would help them and EVER OTHER person living in America). Perhaps we could implement 1 or two more tax brackets for people who make staggering amounts of money, or implement a capital gains tax bracket for people who make over 1 or 2 or 5 million dollars in capital gains in a year. I am throwing numbers out there as examples of course, economists can figure out exactly what the numbers and tax rates should be...but this NEEDS to be done if we want this country to last. I am way off topic now, this isn't an economics thread, this is about addiction. So yeah, sorry about that.
purdue was also a huge factor with oxycodone, not sure if purdue pharma is the same as purdue with the chicken.
Methyl Mike
New Member
Dopamine is typically where the root of the addiction lies. Meth cocain heroin etc work with dopamine on some level either blocking its reuptake or being a synthetic version of it.
I should have explained my approach a little better. Abilify and Cabergoline work as dopamine agonists (or partial agonists as the case may be.) I believe what they do which is of use to addicts is that they occupy dopamine receptors without activating them. Meaning they kill cravings yet you don't get high. Thats my understanding anyway. However using the meds the way that I am would be considered off label or grey area. So dont count on many doctors to support the idea.
Fwiw I got the abilify idea from a psychiatrist at a local hospital for people without insurance. After yet another relapse I went in to the emergency psych unit (reserved for people at the end of their rope, and I was borderline suicidal) and begged this woman to give me a fighting chance. I was in tears. I had lost another job first paycheck due to a relapse I was sure wasnt coming. I begged this woman for my life and she wrote a sxript for Abilify and itchanged my life temporarily. I slept nearly two straight weeks on it.
Anyway my cabergoline usage was so I could avoid sides from trenbolone but when i researched how it worked I was like IT DOES WHAT????
Bodybuilding saved my life.
I would also add I genuinely wanted to get sober. More than anything. I just had a body hardwired to betray me. The cabergoline leveled the playing field, gave me a fighting chance. Which I ran with. But withoit the desire to stay clean it might not be as effective. Tell you all this much, i am so happy. The thought of getting loaded does not cross my mind. I never I NEVER thought it would be this easy.
I also give it up to God. With Him anything is possible and I will.not assume He has not helped me. Im quite sure He has actually. God is great! Put God first in everything you do and anything is possible.
Last edited:
It does in Canada
We have government heroin lounges now
Chilled out sofas and chill music playing while nurses supervise and help you slam junk
Then grab a bunk next door for a good nights sleep and a meal
And dont worry, your cheque from my taxes will be by shortly.
Not hating on anyone and their problems.
But creating places like that doesnt help people get clean.
I've had my own addiction issues, and being enabled doesnt fucking help
Bumpygooch
Well-known Member
It’s the “they’re going to do it anyway, let’s make it safer.” Which can be extrapolated to virtually anything, i.e., people are murdered every day as well, so.........they’re going to do it anyway, let’s murder FOR them? It’s an absurd argument.
Wow if i was actively using that sounds amazing lol. Do they supply the heroin too?
Methyl Mike
New Member
Please tell me you are joking? Are you serious? That is a travesty against the people if true. Like the gov couldnt figure out anything better to solve the problem than to cater to addicts?
Do you get a tshirt when you leave? "Hey I got.hooked on heroin and all I got was" or something.
Methyl Mike
New Member
Totally irresponsible way to face a growing problem IMHO.
Methyl Mike
New Member
I mean it is either that or they can use in their car while driving and then crash and kill people, or they can use in an alleyway and get AIDS or Hepatitis or something and drain even MORE money from our taxes because now we have to pay their ENORMOUS healthcare bills. It's not like addiction doesn't cost anything under normal ci
The government does NOT want to depopulate. They actually want the population to grow. More people means more tax revenue, higher GDP, more military personnel, etc. As a rule of thumb, it is beneficial for the government when a country's population increases. That's why countries like Japan are so concerned that their population is declining due to low birth rates. In reality, the planet needs us to depopulate. There are too many humans on Earth and it is entirely unsustainable. From an economic perspective though, having more working people paying dem taxes is real good for the gubment.
Hey y'all,
I wanted to point out that safe use centers (also known as supervised consumption sites/SCS, supervised injection facility/SIF, ) and syringe service programs (SSP, which give clean needles out) have been studied quite extensively and they have actually been shown to SAVE money for the government. On top of that, they save much more lives.
Moral qualms aside (believe me, I have some conflicting moral opinions on these things), think about the savings:
- No more ambulances or police having to be dispatched to random locations when someone ODs
- Often times they get there too late anyway, and the person still dies. Addicts are usually poor and they don't have the money to cover the costs.
- Ambulance rides, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations are the primary expenses here. This ends up getting billed back to insurance or medicaid, or if they were totally uninsured I think it would just be put on the hospital as a loss?
The amount of money saved by having addicts use in a safe location where there are medical staff on site to immediately respond to an overdose is huge. We are talking millions of dollars saved!
Then you combine that with the amount of money saved by preventing transmissible diseases like HIV or Hepatis, etc., by Syringe Service Programs, and it REALLY adds up to an overall savings for taxpayers.
So while it is easy to say, it is much more complex than just a simple idea of "I don't want my tax money going to a building where addicts can go to use drugs!" Addiction and drug abuse are here and they're here to stay. The alternative is that we taxpayers end up footing a bill for hundreds or even thousands (depending on the municipality) of ambulance rides and ER visits, etc. It also then frees up those ambulances and ER and hospital beds for OTHER people who aren't drug addicts in their due to drug abuse--I don't know of any stories where someone was turned away because the beds were full of addicts who ODed, but this is also something to consider.
Not to mention this creates a fixed cost because we KNOW the cost of running the facility and we can reasonably predict how many syringes will need to be given out (and they are cheap as hell anyway). The alternative of not having these sites and programs is a variable cost where you don't know how many people are going to overdose or require ER visits or hospital stays, so it's much harder to budget properly. One batch of H that is overly-tainted with fentanyl could increase costs by millions as addicts around the area all overdose at once.
Yes, there are moral and ethical issues such as, does this mean the government is sanctioning drug use? These sorts of facilities have been around for decades in the EU and Canada, and a multitude of studies have showed that having these sites and programs around does not worsen the rate of drug use or addiction in the area. It simply makes it safer for addicts to use and saves money for taxpayers via reduced healthcare costs. These sites also provide quick access to recovery services for drug abusers/addicts. Usually I believe these these sites have addiction specialists and counselors on staff who can help provide an avenue for addicts to take to get help and become a contributing member of society again
Overall, I think the net benefit is much larger than the net positive. Yes, it is easy to have an initial reaction of "hell no! That's a terrible idea!" but you really have to look at the data to take an unbiased look at the topic.
So
Hey y'all,
I wanted to point out that safe use centers (also known as supervised consumption sites/SCS, supervised injection facility/SIF, ) and syringe service programs (SSP, which give clean needles out) have been studied quite extensively and they have actually been shown to SAVE money for the government. On top of that, they save much more lives.
Moral qualms aside (believe me, I have some conflicting moral opinions on these things), think about the savings:
- No more ambulances or police having to be dispatched to random locations when someone ODs
- Often times they get there too late anyway, and the person still dies. Addicts are usually poor and they don't have the money to cover the costs.
- Ambulance rides, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations are the primary expenses here. This ends up getting billed back to insurance or medicaid, or if they were totally uninsured I think it would just be put on the hospital as a loss?
The amount of money saved by having addicts use in a safe location where there are medical staff on site to immediately respond to an overdose is huge. We are talking millions of dollars saved!
Then you combine that with the amount of money saved by preventing transmissible diseases like HIV or Hepatis, etc., by Syringe Service Programs, and it REALLY adds up to an overall savings for taxpayers.
So while it is easy to say, it is much more complex than just a simple idea of "I don't want my tax money going to a building where addicts can go to use drugs!" Addiction and drug abuse are here and they're here to stay. The alternative is that we taxpayers end up footing a bill for hundreds or even thousands (depending on the municipality) of ambulance rides and ER visits, etc. It also then frees up those ambulances and ER and hospital beds for OTHER people who aren't drug addicts in their due to drug abuse--I don't know of any stories where someone was turned away because the beds were full of addicts who ODed, but this is also something to consider.
Not to mention this creates a fixed cost because we KNOW the cost of running the facility and we can reasonably predict how many syringes will need to be given out (and they are cheap as hell anyway). The alternative of not having these sites and programs is a variable cost where you don't know how many people are going to overdose or require ER visits or hospital stays, so it's much harder to budget properly. One batch of H that is overly-tainted with fentanyl could increase costs by millions as addicts around the area all overdose at once.
Yes, there are moral and ethical issues such as, does this mean the government is sanctioning drug use? These sorts of facilities have been around for decades in the EU and Canada, and a multitude of studies have showed that having these sites and programs around does not worsen the rate of drug use or addiction in the area. It simply makes it safer for addicts to use and saves money for taxpayers via reduced healthcare costs. These sites also provide quick access to recovery services for drug abusers/addicts. Usually I believe these these sites have addiction specialists and counselors on staff who can help provide an avenue for addicts to take to get help and become a contributing member of society again
Overall, I think the net benefit is much larger than the net positive. Yes, it is easy to have an initial reaction of "hell no! That's a terrible idea!" but you really have to look at the data to take an unbiased look at the topic.
So
I have no problem with things such as decriminalization (Which is a topic @Millard Baker has taught me a decent bit about... tagged you because you always have some cool insight on the topic and it seems to be a topic you're passionate about)
Clean injection sites etc.
I understand the financial aspect of it.
But there is a difference between harm reduction and enabling people.
If you give them a heroin lounge, a place to sleep off the junk and cut them cheques... there is no fucking rock bottom.
My personal belief is that there is a balance to be struck
These are human being and should be taken care of ... TO AN EXTENT that doesnt enable and assist them with carrying in with their addiction
Programs such as mental health and psychiatrists is a great place to start.
But I do have a serious fucking issue with a Heroin lounge... where they can just use their government cheque (That I pay for) to buy more H, to go back to the heroin lounge, it's a dangerous and destructive cycle.
There are methods that HELP
This is going to hinder
Fuck, I dont touch shit anymore, because rock bottom was hit... I remember blasting lines in my truck, coming to and from work on the highway.
Dont think I would be where I am now if someone cut me a cheque for coke and gave me a good place to crank it... fed me then gave me a spot to sleep it off.... then gave me money to repeat the fucking process.
I'm okay with my taxes helping my fellow man... but fuck.. leta get people clean
Methyl Mike
New Member
I think a line has to be drawn where the government isvtoo supportive and the underlying message seems to be aaproval rather than harm reduction. The USA goes too far one way Canada seens to be going a little too far the other. However the more intelligent response is def canadas.
Similar threads
