Man, I could use a good beer cooler. Do you think the guvmint could buy me one?

Toronto already does this and thankfully we have the healthiest crack heads in the east.
They used to only be able to break into 6 cars a day, now with the help of the gubmint, our healthier crackheads are breaking into 10 plus cars a day.

this is the drug addict version of leftoids thinking increasing borrowing and deficits solves a debt problem.

Works so well for the economy, should be big success for drug addicts, right?

I wonder if these pipes are being handed out to government employees. They dreamt up this program, probably a conflict of interest.

The best solution to a non-existant problem is to do nothing.

Crack-heads succumbing to Hep C etc is a self correcting solution....Nature's way...like natural...organic...GREEN...

This is certainly one of those times when I am so damned ashamed of being a British Columbian. Is there no way to be rid of the idiot Robertson and his crew of destructors?

Hand them out at city hall, they obviously need them.

Just so you know the vancouver coastal health authority is unelected and is appointed by the province. So it wasn't peace moonbeam this time but I don't doubt he's a supporter. Think about it this way though. With that 50k you could just about pay for a full time nurse.

I don't see a problem with this as long as they are hand-crafted, fair trade, sustainable crack pipes and not McCrack Pipes from capitalist overlords.

I'm not convinced that harm prevention strategies are the best way to help addicts but crack pipes are lot less dangerous to the public than carelessly discarded tax-payer provided needles. Frankly, the whole idea of preventing Hep-C while facilitating the crack addiction is like offering a band-aid to someone who is bleeding to death from a gaping stab wound.

"Across Canada, only a handful of cities, including Calgary and Winnipeg, hand out crack pipes."

Welcome to the club,Vancouver! Vanc. is SO fortunate to have elected a forward-thinking Mayor. Now,Vancouverites can grow wheat in their front yards,raise chickens in their back yards,and and watch crackheads and junkies do their thing all year 'round!

Oh,forgot to mention those bicycle lanes.

They might as well cut to the chase and hand out the dope to whomever declares himself an addict,as "richfisher" says,they have to do B&E's to support their lifestyles now,so for the sake of the taxpayers,give it to 'em free.

It's the next step, and the governments will get around to it eventually anyway.

Allah almighty,what a society we've become.

From the article:

"Mouth pieces alone are not enough. Health consequences don’t just come from the mouth piece; they come from unsafe pipes."

News flash - "healh consequences" come from: Smoking. The. Crack. In. The. First. Place.

See LC Bennett above - right on, LC!
Can't say it any better myself, so I'll let you say it...

I've got a basket case friend who can't make things meet up month to month that I've been helping at about $500 per year. He don't smoke crack but he can't get an extra $40 a month. A hundred of his like is a better investment than crack pipes.

I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to spend the 50 grand on crack and distribute it to these poor craving addicts.

But then I caught on. It's kinda biblical.

Give a man a hit, and he'll be stoned for a day.

But teach him how to smoke, and you'll have a job for life.

Give them free drugs; as much as they want. It's the logical and effective approach to true harm reduction.

The high cost of drugs fosters property crime and prostitution to feed the habit and organized crime gets rich off the ludicrous mark-up on street drugs. If drugs are free to registered addicts then they have a chance to get their life together out of the crime world.

Yes, some will undoubtedly OD; they probably would have anyway.

There are more addicts than the system can treat; adopt a triage approach to save the savable and make the end as painless as possible for the others.

Getting them out of the crime loop gives them the best chance to control their addiction.

Just giving out free paraphernalia only makes the drug lords richer.

james at 1:36pm

Quit making excuses for Mayor Moonbeam. All he had to do was act like an honourable leader and simply say "Not in my city!" to any nutbar promoting a lunatic idea. However, I guess that may be expecting too much of that pretty-boy jerk.

as long as they are purchased at retail from the local head shop and not at a gubmint discount. hate to run those head shops out of business. I cant steer far enough away from vancouver these days.

Any one seen the price of gold latley? jee i wonder why iti s soo high!!!

i love it when crypto-marxists use the economic argument to justify enabling illegal, hazardous, and self-destructive choices. You betcha treating HIV, constant emergency room visits, ambulance calls and sundry other medical support cost money. But at the heart of the problem is the decision to save these buggers in the first place. When Narcan started saving every junkie stupid enough to overdose costs soared! If it's about economics I have to submit that letting them die quickly is awfully economical.

Hard hearted, I know, but when my best friend has to shell out of pocket for the needles that keep his son alive while addicts get them free, I get a little steamed.

what's fallacy is the belief that criminals will stop commiting crime if you feed their habit.

it's not a zero sum game. trash is trash, no matter how you got there.

the bright side is... it's never too late to turn back to the good side.

this whole fiasco is naught but another creative way to spend OPP.

Libby and the Dippers of BC must be ecstatic at this news.

Is Vancouver completely cracked, totally wasted or both?

brother, can you spare a 'pipe?

not convinced crackheads/needle users care if they "share a hit".

what's more important, gettin' high or health?

not rational peaople makin the decision.....

Why not just sell them the crack?

Give them a park, pipe and all the free crack they can smoke in an hour.

The only problem I see with the free drug approach, N of 60, is that this is basically what we do with alcoholics. Alcoholics use their welfare money to go on a lifetime bender while the taxpayer pays for subsidized housing, utilities, medical care, dental care, etc... and police services (addicts commit crimes due to inhibition and temperament with or without the presence of drug lords). I grew up living across the street from a welfare drunk and his total cost to taxpayers over his age 30-something to age 65 of social benefits must be in the 100s of thousands. Society should not be expected to carry the cost of the useless who contribute nothing to society - drunks or drug addicts. Time limits of welfare are long overdue.

*Depressing story about the neighborhood drunk -at 65 he was moved from welfare to the public pension plan, his biggest complaint is that he has less disposable income (for booze I assume) because he is required to pay bills that the province takes care of for welfare recipients.

Isn't worrying about 'the health consequences' of not using CLEAN crack pipes sorta like worrying about the health consequences of getting shot in the face by a DIRTY :45 hollow point bullet?

I think that the Coastal Health authorities should be handing out capes as well - just to show how 'capable' these people realy can be even if they are stoned. (Google "Capes+Florida"). It would be a nice gesture, I think.

If you want less of something: Tax it.
If you want more of something: Subsidize it.

Draw your own conclusions.

Vancouver. One of the most beautiful cities in the world. And downtown loaded with drug addicts and beggars (the two terms are inter-changeable).

A few months ago I parked my car at a meter, on the street. A creature, thinly-disguised as a human male, emerged from a doorway and said "Hey mister...give me ten bucks and I'll make sure nothing bad happens to your car".

I looked at him and said that I had an even better deal involving no money exchange, that I would be finished my business in about an hour and a half and if, upon my return, no damage had been done to my car, I wouldn't shoot him in the gut.

Heh. I may have been having a bad day, but regardless, no damage ensued, and no money changed hands (like I'm going to fund this moron's next fix).

They come here for the climate. And because of the fact that our civic leaders are idiots....grrrrrrr

Still only a rumour but the BC Human Rights folks are taking the city to court for inhumane treatment by NOT filling the pipes when they hand them out.

OT: It's time for another YouTube like/dislike poll to go horribly wrong.

Oh look, the "Obama Board" from a Toronto centre of the known universe lefty with a midi toy.

"Canadians, they love Barack Obama hands down, their most favorite politician."

Vote now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2b6_k4Qus

Sigh..keep 'em on crack, heroin, meth..anything to addle the mind and keep the middle class paying for all the social engineering not to mention global warming and it's 'stark consequences'.... and you can be assured of a left vote every time.
When they run out of other people's money they will come for their hide.
Best we get tough now and end this fantasy socialist experiment. EVERYWHERE we find it.

What a wonderfull idea; we should buy new cars for gangbangers who do drive-by's so they won't injure themselves driving an unsafe vehicle. Also we should give out free .45 auto's to potential armed robbers so that there's less likelyhood of having increased medical bills from paraplegic victims as a result of using an underpowered firearm. Poor people like Breivik who toiled in dangerous conditions mixing ANALFO should be provided with a fully equipped industrial production facility with all of the latest safety gear. I'm so glad I no longer live in the moonbat capital of Canada.

The reason that coke users get HepC is that they inject the stuff and the coke high lasts for maybe 5 minutes and then there's an unpleasant crash. The first thing on a cokeheads mind at that point is grabbing the nearest syringe, used or not, and getting their next hit together so the can get that 5 minute rush again. HepC is tough to spread sexually and none of the couples in my practice where one partner was HepC+ and the other wasn't seroconverted in the 10 year period I monitored them.

There used to be a perfectly good way of ingesting cocaine and that was as the hydrochloride salt, finely ground and insnufflated through a tube (preferably a rolled up $100 bill) into ones nose. Longer high, less of a crash and no chance of tranmission of HepC if everyone used their own C-note. There are losses in converting cocaine hydrochloride to free base cocaine and a considerable amount of cocaine is pyrolyzed to other compounds during the far from gentle sublimation process. Most cocaine afficionado's I knew in the 1970's rejected free-basing as it was a highly inefficient way to ingest a very expensive product. Only people like Richard Pryor could afford to do so. The price of a gram of pure cocaine in 1975 was $150 and I believe it's down as low as $50-75 in Vancouver now. How's that for success of the "war on (some) drugs" in causing a deflationary spiral in the drug market?

AFAIK, the Vancouver Health Department are a bunch of moonbat morons. If I was running this program I'd spend the money on 50 kg of pharmaceutical grade cocaine hydrochloride and give out free grams with a straw and instructions on the seemingly lost art of snorting cocaine.

The left are bound and determined to use whatever measure necessary to jam the square peg of their ideology into the round hole of reality - and it doesn't matter how many lives they help destroy in the process (indeed that would seem to be the goal)

In Calgary the pipes are distributed along with condoms(other items too)in a plastic bag that has been dubbed the 'party pack'.

I agree with the practice. We also give methadone to addicts,maybe at your neighbourhood Safeway, depending on where you live. There is also something very similar to safe injection sites in the city,they are not advertised,you have to know where to go,and they are not the 'stroll on in' places like Vancouver.

I'm all for 'harm reduction' with the gov't supplying the drugs,this would ultimately reduce the harm to my pocketbook.

Qu'elle horror!

The next thing you know, government agencies will be selling alcohol and raking in tax money from tobacco.(2 addictive substances that have killed far more people than crack).

Next it wil be free drugs paid by you & me. In the name of public safty of course. Can't have people doing bad dope. They may OD.
We are now sunsidising a new clas of drug addled beggers. YEt Canadians that work all their life here get a 1000 dollars less than an Old age Minority pensioner just off the plane. For a pension not worked a day in Canada. Sweet eh?
JMO

What? No free cars for the little car-jackers? I see a Human Rights case in the future.I also smell Libby Davies all over this stupidity.

The next thing you know, government agencies will be selling alcohol and raking in tax money from tobacco.(2 addictive substances that have killed far more people than crack). -Posted by: Observer at August 2, 2011 5:26 PM

Actually, there are quite a few SDA posters who don't give a damn what an adult chooses to snort, shoot, drink or inhale into their body. Legalize, tax it, whatever...but don't ask taxpayers to foot the bill. Right now tax money is spent to help addict become safer addicts, subsidize their lifestyle, give government grant to activist to lobby on drug addicts behalf *and* use up police time and jail space on behalf on the war on drugs. Stupid and expensive.

CBC poll on publicly funded crack pipes. They seem well suited to their role as crack-pipe fundraisers.

Since the old model of "The War on Drugs" has worked so well, why bother trying something new?

While I realize that Compassionate Conservatives feel that drug addicts are less than human and as such should just be allowed to just die in the streets, the sane of people in this country would like to find a way to mitigate harm to these individuals, perhaps give them the opportunity to rehabilitate and ultimately save the taxpayer some money by not having these people put an additional strain on our health care system.

No, Iberia, drug addicts are fully human. Progressives, OTOH? More like leech-human hybrids whose "compassion" goes not further than their desire to skim 90 cents of every dollar intended for social justice projects.

People should be free to do what they want to themselves but they should not have the right to demand that society subsidize their crappy choices. I'd rather pay for the direct health care costs for the addict than the direct and indirect costs of the social justice racket.

Iberia is a drama queen, yeah we conservatives want to see them die in the streets, what a moron.
On another note, anyone who lives in Vancouver and drives downtown gets to see a whole different view of the city and they sure don't look to be lining up for rehab, far from it.

No, Iberia

We are compassionate. We want them off the poison. The so called "progressives" want them to continue their self destructive lifestyle slowly killing themselves in order they can feel good about themselves.

We are also more compassionate to the poor schmoo's paying for this false compassion (generally us conservatives).

On another note, we should start a rumor that the needles and pipes are laced with poison. Maybe they could be more responsible and take care of their own needles and pipes.....bahahahahahahaha

Multirec, I'm glad you read all the comments:

"The best solution to a non-existant problem is to do nothing.

Crack-heads succumbing to Hep C etc is a self correcting solution....Nature's way...like natural...organic...GREEN..."

Posted by: sasquatch at August 2, 2011 1:07 PM

"...When Narcan started saving every junkie stupid enough to overdose costs soared! If it's about economics I have to submit that letting them die quickly is awfully economical."

Posted by: the rat at August 2, 2011 2:20 PM

I honestly thought the crack thing had peaked in the '80s. Aren't they all dead by now? (BTW my understanding is that, while even opiates are not nearly as physically addictive as most people believe, cocaine is a drug that requires herculean effort to get hooked on. If I'm right then this would indicate that crack addicts really, really, really want to be screwed up.)

Wow, you found 2? SDA is being swamped by extremists, run for the hills!

"People should be free to do what they want to themselves but they should not have the right to demand that society subsidize their crappy choices."

The latter necessitates the former. If the market for drugs was a free market, I would certainly agree with your assessment. However, since our government is artificially inflating the cost of drugs by criminalizing their use, I certainly can't blame users for wanting a subsidy, nor can I see a good argument against providing it. We either legalize drugs, or we provide assistance to users - take your pick.

If you read any of my posts, alex, you'd see I am for legalizing drugs as long as drug users take responsibility for the consequences and welfare is reformed.

Take your pick

Pretty dumb reasoning - How about none of the above. Don't do drugs if you can't afford current prices. Drug use is a personal choice. Millions of us manage to function without them.

Why not the take all the druggies and make them join the army for 2 years. That should fix them.

In Vancouver you have all manner of druggies, including the maggot infested, filthy pot smoking hippies who happily smoke pot in public. Who is going to pay for their burned out lungs and fried brains? That's right, the taxpayer.

Vancouver should just bulldoze the Downtown Eastside, and put up new buildings, condos, etc. Long ago it used to be a perfectly fine part of town, but the never-ending stream of left-wing socialists at City Hall have allowed it to go to ruin.

Now they think that handing out free drugs and crack pipes is the solution. Kate's headline was bang on the money.

"If you read any of my posts, alex, you'd see I am for legalizing drugs as long as drug users take responsibility for the consequences and welfare is reformed."

That's stupid. May as well criminalize apples until welfare is reformed.

"Pretty dumb reasoning - How about none of the above. Don't do drugs if you can't afford current prices."

Pretty dumb reasoning - first you state that people should be "free to do what they want to themselves", then you argue that inflating the price of freedom is ok, and people should just give up if they can't afford it. Maybe we can start charging for freedom of speech, next. If you can't afford it, you can go home and shut up. That sound about right?

So Alex-who-isn't-a-troll, just to be clear, if drug use is legalized then you will be happy to see addicts die in the metaphorical gutter or else see them pay full legal penalty for the actions they commit because they are under the influence of drugs and/or to aquire money for drugs?

It's a legitimate position, but I honestly doubt you'd have the stomach for it.

That's right Mamba-who-isn't-a-troll, I'm happy to see addicts die in a gutter NOW. I'm just not a fan of infringing on peoples rights, or contributing to the spread of communicable diseases. This, of course, makes me a "leftard" and a troll - at least in the eyes of the geniuses who frequent SDA.

It is really simple, Alex - personal choice, personal responsibility. Along with that is the responsibility to fund your lifestyle choice by yourself not on the backs of taxpayers. What don't you understand?

No one is forcing anyone to do drugs or pay the inflated prices. Unlike say Ontario residents who are paying for over inflated electricity prices (also due to gov't policies) but I doubt if you'd fight as hard for their cause.

So I guess they're giving out 50 crack pipes made of solid gold that cost $1,000 each. It is the civil service after all.

Addiction to dangerous substances kills addicts. If giving out free crack pipes (something we could see happening after the free condoms and needles), the proponents of this crazy plan can pay for it themselves.

If you cut off monetary support for addicts, they will have no choice but to seek treatment. Why make things difficult when they don't have to be?

"No one is forcing anyone to do drugs or pay the inflated prices."

Repeating yourself without addressing what I said is pointless - in the future, don't expect any response if you insist on wasting my time.

"Unlike say Ontario residents who are paying for over inflated electricity prices (also due to gov't policies) but I doubt if you'd fight as hard for their cause."

Been fighting it for years, but you can doubt whatever you like.

in the future, don't expect any response if you insist on wasting my time.
Is that a promise Alex because I'll hold you to that.

The problem is that you point was, well, pointless. Free speech is a natural right, subsidized drugs or the right not to pay inflated prices for consumer goods are a faux-right made up by silly people who have no concept of real rights. If you really believe that government would legalize drugs and then not charge a hefty sin tax then I'd like to have what you're smoking.

And, no, I don't believe you because I've read your opinions on AGW. Perhaps you fancy yourself a libertarian but you are a statist (with libertine tendencies) in every way that matters.

Decades ago, Doctors sometimes gave heroin to sick patients for their ailment. Once cured and no longer needing the heroin, the patients were told they would feel bad for a while, then get better. Few, if any, patients died from the heroin withdrawal. Offering free drugs and methadone due to witnessing painful withdrawal symptoms from drug use/abuse is misplaced sympathy. How long would Doctors continue to prescribe Methadone if they didn't get remuneration for their prescriptions? Recreational use of drugs is just chemical masturbation.

Hey Iberia, nice context-less quote there. Maybe you could read the whole thing again and work on the comprehension. The argument put forward in the article is that we conservatives should support harm reduction because it reduces costs - no mention of compassion. If that is the argument supporters of harm reduction want to go with I submit that my quote was simply the end result of the logic.

If you want compassion, my compassion says either let them be adults and make big-boy decisions without sticking their hands in my pocket, or if they are truly unable to do so, then it is society's job to get them off the drugs. That means taking temporarily taking away their rights and sending them somewhere to get clean. Compassion isn't the same a enabling.

"Free speech is a natural right, subsidized drugs or the right not to pay inflated prices for consumer goods are a faux-right made up by silly people who have no concept of real rights."

So you think the ability of individuals to engage in the exchange of goods in a free market is a "faux-right made up by silly people"?

Nice. Good to see those "conservative" values shining through. Stalin would have loved you.

"And, no, I don't believe you because I've read your opinions on AGW."

If you think the increase in electrical prices is a logical result of accepting the scientific evidence behind AGW, then you truly are an idiot.

IMO, Iberia, there is a big difference between allowing people to kill themselves and supporting the murder of others. Had the comments started ranting about "cleansing" the streets of addicts or violence against addicts then you would have seen a different response.

"cocaine is a drug that requires herculean effort to get hooked on. "

Nope.BM,it's really easy to get addicted to coke,just snort it a few times and it's like the old Toyota ad from the 70's, "you'll never let go".

I knew many friends who got hooked on that stuff, and I know others who saw how bloody quickly you can become addicted,and quit while they were ahead.

There is no real scientific evidence that any of these feel good programs actually work. However, you will notice that the impact on non-targeted individuals is enormous.

In Ottawa, they decided not to fund free needles and crack pipes since it was a useless and ineffective program. HIV rates in Ottawa rose during this "experiment" and used needles were being found on private property every day and on an expanding basis. The fear was that children could become infected by these used needles. So much for "needle exchange". The real winner was the unions with unionised employees being used and of course a bloated bureaucracy. The program was brought back by no other than the union controlled Dalton the Liar.

Again, there is a lot of junk science out there that attempts to justify the program. However, when the results come back with "may reduce", "statistics suggest", etc. you know the program and the studies are frauds.

I think you definition of free-market is odd. Over-inflated prices on the free market are not unusual. For instance the housing prices in Vancouver are over-inflated but I don't think that means citizens should have the purchase price subsidized or government mandated housing price controls. People can choose to buy or not to buy. Ditto for drugs buy or don't buy, your choice. There is no guarantee that a free market in drugs would not raise prices, depending on same supply and demand situation as the housing market.

I'll leave the AGW science for another time because you've been embarrassed yourself about that too many times already. But even true believers must see the idiocy and overt statism of the proposed solutions. If you recognize that then great.

Alex:
What scientific evidence?
Climatology isn't a science by the way, it is at best, a study.
Anyway if these addicts are posing a threat because of their diseases they should be dried out.
By the way we are paying for freedom of speech, ever heard of HRC's.

Cocaine (even crack) isn't all that bad for you. Like most illegal drugs, the most dangerous aspects of it are those related to prohibition.

Why is it that you're all so skeptical of government except when it comes to drugs? The science behind drug prohibition is about as good that behind Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Pointing to a junkie and saying, "see that proves heroin is bad for you" is like me pointing to a Prius and saying, "see that proves that CO2 makes cars suck."

Not that the government should be paying for crack pipes, but it's no worse than all the other crap it pays for.

I think your last comment is the most accurate, 10ther. The general consensus is "Buy your own damn crack pipe!"

"I think you definition of free-market is odd. Over-inflated prices on the free market are not unusual. For instance the housing prices in Vancouver ..."

Over-inflated prices may not be unusual, but arresting people for manufacturing, buying, and selling certainly is. Last I checked, the housing market was still legal.

"There is no guarantee that a free market in drugs would not raise prices, depending on same supply and demand situation as the housing market."

Please, please tell me you don't believe something THAT ridiculous. Thanks to tax-exemptions, the "natives" sell cigarettes at $10-$20 for a bag of 200. That works out to a price of about $5-$10 per pound of tobacco. Weed sells for over $2,000 per pound. The situation with hard drugs is similar, except the ratio between production cost and purchase price is even higher. You'd have to be a complete moron not to realize that legalization would result in a massive decrease in price, even if the government decided to tax it to death (which, again, goes contrary to free-market principles).

"I'll leave the AGW science for another time because you've been embarrassed yourself about that too many times already."

You're hilarious :D That's fine, though - I'm more than happy to let you keep embarrassing yourself on one issue at a time!

Where is that Old Liberal Sot, "Head Is Fried" Hedy Fry. Crack Pipes, and Holy Burning Crosses, what next a hockey riot and looting....

"Cocaine (even crack) isn't all that bad for you. Like most illegal drugs, the most dangerous aspects of it are those related to prohibition"

Not so sure about that, I grew up with coke heads in Montreal and you'd be stunned at their haggard features. Heck, one did a surprise visit to my house in BC and I was SHOCKED at his appearance, he caught my look as well. His teeth are what got me, it looked like his bloody tongue was in jail...and he used to be a damn handsome man.

I should mention that he upgraded\downgraded to crack, that's what I think did the most harm to him.

ALEX GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE

Here are two scenario's for you that i as a regular citizen should be able to choose .

keep em illegal and keep doing the do as ususal busting the bad guy's and snuffing it out where ever you can (help those that can't and won't help themselves)

or we legalize it but not one cent goes towards any type of hospital,funeral, "safe house" or any other wierd concotion ..as well me myself as a tax paying legal citizen should have the right to defend my self my family andm y property even if it includes taking the life of another human being in defence of my own life that includes catching a crack head trying to break into or stealing my lawn chair off of my property if you will concede to the later then we may have some common ground other than that . Stop trolling he like your some sort of higher thinker no pun intended , but you seem to alway's have no real true fair answer to anything just drivel of sarcastic ,snarky ,sinical, selfrighteous , self centered,selfish, non factual point's , and even the barley fact's you do make are so weak it is not worth speaking to . Your such a little bleeding heart sh!t head , and full of it that i'm afraid if you take a sh!t your head will cave in!!1 P!ss off would you!!

Alex, I like how you switch back and forth between general free market principles back to specific drug prohibition markets. Nice trick, did you learn that in college?

I admit that I am not on expert on drug prices, drugs are not my thing. I would predict that a sudden crash in prices would drive suppliers and distributors out of business - decreasing the supply, increasing prices. In addition, the gov't would tax drugs heavily just like alcohol and cigarettes. I'd bet that the gov't would also monopolize the sale of drugs. Much like the end of alcohol prohibition, the bootleggers would be driven out of business. Pot, OTOH, probably would be cheap because it is easy to grow. I've never really understood why pot was illegal in the first place.

I'll ignore your last comment but I do admit that I am wasting your time and insist you keep your promise to stop talking to me.

When a crack user reaches the point where he can't afford to get is own pipe that is a sign that this is nothing more than a bag of scabby skin waiting for it's heart to stop beating.

Gregor Robinson and company believe that not bag of scabby skin should be left behind.

After the first fifty grand is used up .... what then?

Sorry that .. should read ...

'no bag of scabby skin should be left behind."

And I might add ... no tax-payers behind should left with out a shaft.

Like many here, I think drugs should be legalized and taxed. This would reduce the external costs to society and almost eliminate the "drug repression" business - greatly reducing police, courts, jails, etc. But some of the comments here are ludicrous.

LC Bennett: You think welfare enables alcoholics? In Ontario, a single man can only get $600/month. Even after you pay reduced rent, you're left with $300/month for food, transport, clothing, etc. At $5/day for food, that leaves less than $5/day for booze - that's a mickey every three days. You can't even keep a low-grade drunk on that.

However, I actually find myself agreeing with Alex: you either legalize drugs, or you compensate people for the artificial costs that society decides to impose on drug users. The first case is simpler, cheaper, and more fair.

Paul: I've ALWAYS been a proponent of gun rights and the right to self-defense, though in your case I'd probably make an exception for the former. I don't think it's a good idea to give weapons to retards, violent criminals, or mental patients. Judging by your comments, you're bound to fall into at least one of those categories. I'd rather not see you "defending" yourself by putting two loads of buckshot through a 14 year old who just broke your window - for your sake, and his.

LC: Done!

Black Mamba is right - it takes quite an effort to get hooked on cocaine; that is unless you're Bipolar in which case it can be very very attractive. 95% of people can use cocaine occasionally and not have any ill effects but 5% end up having major problems with cocaine. It's not coincidental that 5% happens to be the fraction of the population that is bipolar.

In double blind experiments non-bipolars and bipolars were given an injection of either placebo or ritalin intravenously and asked to rate the experience. In non-bipolars, there was no dramatic mood elevation and negative comments were more frequent in the drug state than non-drug state. In the Bipolar population, OTOH, people got incredible highs and felt fantastic and this was highly correlated with the drug and not placebo state. One of the questions I use in determining peoples psychiatric diagnosis is asking them about their drugs of choice; pure heroin users are more likely to be unipolar depressives and exclusive stimulant users more likely to be bipolar. This is just a rule of thumb and doesn't apply to the E. Hastings crowd who will take anything that will change their state of conciousness. In contrast to the rich smorgasboard of designer pharmaceuticals available in the 1970's, the Hasting street dealers have simplified greatly and it's either "up" or "down" (cocaine/heroin) that are available.

One book well worth reading is Freud's "Cocaine Papers" which has all of Freud's writings on cocaine. He was clearly hypomanic when he first started experimenting with cocaine and using it for treating heroin addiction. He seemed to have no trouble stopping cocaine but never did kick his cigar habit.

The natives of the Andes who chew coca leaf are very healthy and cocaine in this dilute form is a mild stimulant. When cocaine is purified, intranasal use gives higher blood levels than oral ingestion and is more toxic. Most toxic is iv use or inhaling sublimed cocaine. The last two methods give the best but shortest rush and also the most toxic effects. The occasional use of freebase cocaine is virtually harmless in a 20 year old non-bipolar, but inhaling cocaine vapors every 5-15 minutes for days at a time is as damaging to the body as drinking a 40-ouncer of scotch daily. Actually the scotch is more deadly as alcohol withdrawal is often fatal if untreated. Just another example of that pharmacologic maxim: it's the dose that makes the poison.

So, if people have the need to make comments about how particularly "addicting" certain drugs are, it's important to specify the underlying psychopathology present in the addict.

IMO, legalze it, let the addicts abuse themselves, but not on the tax payer's dollar. Personally, I find it disgusting when I have to drive downtown in Vancouver, which is alot. How can such a large group of dregs get together and just do drugs and loiter. What a mess.

LC:
Pot illegal why?
In the US: because W.R. Hearst was heavy into pulp & paper to feed his newspaper chain. When the hemp industry threatened to move into paper, he would have none of that & spread, thru his chain, horror stories about the effects of pot. He then got laws past. End of threat. This is the same guy that started the Spanish American War.
Here: It was some female who believed in eugenics,( & racism ) who saw pot as something the "coloured" people did and somehow got it tagged as a narcotic. She is now honoured for her work as a suffragette.

Cocaine, heroin, morphine etc were all legal in the US at one time. It was seen as the cure for opium addiction. Addiction became rampant. http://www.jstor.org/pss/25162817
This caused the US Federal Government to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1914, the precursor to the FDA.

No, I am not in favor of legalizing cocaine or heroin. I've seen what legal opioids do and if cocaine became more readily available then I believe even very young children and the elderly will be at risk.

Let's put this into perspective a bit: the same sort of people who warn us that fatty foods are bad for us, even going so far as to exclude lead-laced Chinese-made toys in Happy Meals, are passionately supporting the use of drug paraphernalia on the taxpayer dime. Not everyone abuses alcohol, prescription drugs, cigarettes or food but handing out pipes/needles/condoms for people who WON'T control their vices is a good idea?

LC Bennett, if currently illegal drugs were decriminalized, their cost would change, but it might be either up or down. You say:
Pot, OTOH, probably would be cheap because it is easy to grow. I've never really understood why pot was illegal in the first place.
The cannabis available now in BC is some of the most potent on the planet. There are people who are experts at growing good quality herb and their product would command premium prices -- probably even more than it goes for now. The garden variety would be virtually free but there would be no market for it.

Any pharmaceutical drugs would have a price determined by the cost of precursors and the ease of synthesis. Methamphetamine would be very cheap as all one needs to do is to replace an alpha-hydroxyl group on an ephedrine/pseudoephedrine molecule with a hydrogen. Similarly MDMA and MDA are cheap to produce and the Chinese chemical suppliers are probably making a huge profit in the Ecstacy market now.

OTOH, no sane individual would ever market any psychoactive drug in an area as litiginous as N. America. If you think that the prices of pharmaceuticals are astronomical, that's because 50-90% of the costs of the drugs may go into litigation from patients who claim that they've been irreperably harmed by any drug that has ever come out. I'm in favor of a totally unregulated system where one would have the choice of buying a drug with no legal recourse against the supplier except in the case of the product not being what it was advertised or, buying the product from a supplier in which one would have the right to sue them in a class action lawsuit. The price of the latter product would probably be 100-200x the cost of the first. I won't hold my breath while I wait for sanity to happen.

Osu...Exactley.

alex

" of accepting the scientific evidence behind AGW, "

I have $20,000.oo that says yer wrong

Loki, did you write the series Breaking Bad? Kidding aside, you do have a vast knowledge of drugs.

"I have $20,000.oo that says yer wrong"

Ok, pay up.

LC Bennett your alcohol analogy isn't valid.

Give most addicts all they want for free and they will soon OD and solve the problem. The cost to the taxpayer for the free drugs will be significantly less than the burden they place on our overstressed health care system.

loki - well, the only (ex, I'm almost sure) cocaine (not crack) "addict" I've ever known well whose former addiction I was sure of - and I lived with her for one of the longer months of my life (it's a long, stupid story) - is a diagnosed bipolar (albeit of an abnormal kind) who also happens to be a Harvard Law grad in her thirties. She was always stoned out of her mind on prescription meds and tequila, mind; still is as far as I know.

Have you read the Aubrey-Maturin novels I was trying to convince everyone to read (you all should really really read them!) back on the book thread? Stephen Maturin is one of my favorite literary characters of all time*** and aside from laudenum he medicates himself like crazy during the run of the novels.

***you know how some people apparently ask themselves "what would Jesus do?"? I sometimes ask myself "what would Stephen Maturin do?" I'm not kidding. Mind you, I don't think I'd do laudenum.

Well, KevinB, Mr.T managed to do it. He hasn't worked a day in 35+ years and was drunk on almost a daily basis. I never got close enough to him to engage him in long conversation about his addiction but I suspect it didn't take much alcohol to get him drunk. Food seemed to be an optional expense for him and he never drove a car due to DUIs. Besides a trip to most reserves in Sask. would indicates both a high rate of welfare and alcoholism. Britain, Ditto. Maybe Ontario is the exception. Legalization that ends the war on drugs and treats the addiction as a medical issue makes sense but you are completely off your rocker if you think taxpayers should subsidize any voluntary purchase, legal or illegal.

Loki and RGB - interesting.

Not only is the world being run by crazy people, many of the people employed by these crazy rulers have absolutely zero common sense. In FREDERICKSBURG, Virginia a young girl saved a baby woodpecker from the family cat, but the "Fish and Wildlife Service fined her mother $535 for unlawfully taking a migratory bird. Good intentions often end badly!

multirec, I wish someone would pay me to write a TV series someday but no such luck. I've had a lifelong fascination with pharmacology, especially psychopharmacology. Just wish I had time to do research although the interplay between peoples genetics and drug responses is one of the most interesting areas of my daily practice.

Valencia, I have to disagree with you about the legal status of cocaine and heroin. It would greatly simplify physicians lives if patients were able to buy opiates without having to see a physician. Then, they could be seen when they wanted to get off opiates rather than playing the frustrating game of figuring out what doses they've taken daily since their last prescription and whether to believe them about their pill-bottle eating dog or the "accidental" spill of pills into the toilet, etc.

The presence of opiate abusers in a practice turns a lot of doctors off prescribing opiates completely and thus under-treating pain. Also, patients, once they get addicted will often blame doctors for their problems which are self-inflicted. Decriminalization of opiate sales directly to patients would solve a lot of medical headaches.

Unlike alcohol withdrawal, opiate withdrawal is not life threatening. High dose opiates do have immune suppressant effects and I suspect it's no coincidence that a lot of junkies I've seen have died of various cancers. The other factor to consider is that the vast majority of people just aren't interested in using drugs uncontrollably; those who are going to do so will find a means to get their drugs illegally or through the medical system.

Unfortunately, for there to be sanity in the area of psychoactive drug availability, there would need to also be legal changes so that people are held totally responsible for their actions which might have resulted when they were totally blitzed on a creative self-designed pharmaceutical cocktail. People would have the choice of either self-treating and being responsible for all the attendant side effects that involves, or seeing a physician and getting treatment on the physicians terms.

"Unfortunately, for there to be sanity in the area of psychoactive drug availability, there would need to also be legal changes so that people are held totally responsible for their actions ..."

Nope. By the laws currently on the books, you can not use intoxication as an excuse for violating the law. The problem you're thinking of is caused by the redefining of intoxication into an "illness" by amoral lawyers and the doctors they buy; however, this varies on a case by case basis depending on how gullible/incompetent the prosecutor, judge and/or jury happen to be. It's also legitimate, in some cases, though people tend to disagree on that issue depending on whether they think the purpose of jail is rehabilitation or vengeance. Still, for the most part it's a non-issue, and certainly wouldn't require changing any laws.

loki - probably not right in this forum, but may I ask, what do you make of benzodiazepine addiction?

Black Mamba, one of the hardest things I've found is trying to get bipolar's off stimulant drugs. They crave their highs and want to prolong them to be as long as possible. Bipolar women can be a lot of fun when they're in the up phase but there's always a crash. A bipolar with a high IQ can often function well as they're good at covering up their down phases by being super-productive during their up phase (if they're just hypomanic - true mania usually ends up with people being admitted to a psych ward or being thrown in jail). There's a great bipolar site at http://psycheducation.org/ which is run by an Oregon psychiatrist and I direct all my bipolar patients to that site.

As far as benzodiazepines go, they were the wonder drug of the 1960's and they still have an important role. I've never understood why people get addicted to benzodiazepines as I find them rather boring and don't like the feeling of having an empty head. But, OTOH, maybe there are a lot of people who don't like what' going on in their heads and want to stop the thoughts. Some people get high on them and they must have totally different GABA receptors than I do. I guess if you can't exercise to deal with anxiety then benzo's are another solution.

I've had good success in switching people from benzodiazepines to atypical antipsychotics, especially if the reason they're taking the benzo's is to try to turn their brains off at night. We've learned about the problems with rebound anxiety with benzo's and their use is now discouraged. OTOH, there are some patients where nothing else has worked and I want as many tools in my pharmacologic toolkit as possible.

In the 1970's benzo's were prescribed for just about everything until we found out about their side effects which, as with every other drug, only affect a small fraction of the population. We're in a similar situation now with the use of atypical antipsychotics which are prescribed for a lot of the same conditions benzo's were prescribed for. Benzo's are some of the safest drugs we have being non-fatal in even massive overdosage unless people chose to combine them with large amounts of alcohol.

I'll make a point of including some Aubrey-Maturin novels in my next Amazon order as I like pharmacologic fiction like HST's writings and PK Dick's books.

I am glad that our govornment has enough common sence to keep drug's illegal for the greater good of society!!!

People are dying whilst waiting for their turn on the rationed healthcare list but they have money to spend providing junkies with clean pipes. Junkies don't die from TB or HIV they die from drug overdoes thus they aren't saving money via harm reduction. I honestly hate those behind harm reduction, they don't help people they enable them.

"What so ever you do to the least of my brethern, you do unto me"

Loki

I didn't say opioids, I said heroin, especially injected heroin. People can be on chronic oral opioids for many years or decades and be productive members or society, of that I am certain.

It is not only the drug per se, but the pharmacokinetics that is often the issue.

And I reiterate about easy availability of iv heroin and crack cocaine....young children and the elderly will, at some point, be given or encouraged to use these drugs. Like it was in the early 1900's.

Benzos and alcohol can be deadly in withdrawal, opioids and cocaine not.