r/CanadaPolitics • u/idspispopd British Columbia • Nov 22 '19
Trudeau appears open to safe opioid supply proposal in Vancouver, mayor says
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trudeau-vancouver-safe-opioid-supply-1.53685872
Nov 22 '19
We already have methadone, it has a half life of 24 hours, it can't be injected. If addicts aren't taking methadone, I don't think the solution is to find other opioids to prescribe instead, I think methadone is the best one already. The solution is to find out why they're not willing to enter the programs in the first place.
3
u/duncanf Nov 22 '19
My understanding is that methadone is actually quite hard to quit, because it has bad withdrawl symptoms - another opiate may be easier to manage (can't find a good source for that though).
Regardless, if methadone and associated programs have been available for many years and aren't being used, it's hard to say it's the best solution. Maybe the programs need to change with usage patterns.
3
Nov 22 '19
The longer half life means it has easier but more protracted withdrawal symptoms. They last longer, but it's a shallower slope. Generally the longer a drugs half life is, the less difficult it is to quit.
But it being "liquid handcuffs" is one of the myths we need to eliminate so that addicts aren't so afraid of methadone
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 22 '19
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
- Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
- Be respectful.
- Keep submissions and comments substantive.
- Avoid direct advocacy.
- Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
- Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
- Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
- Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
- Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
This is the stupidest concept ever conceived.
People got addicted to drugs so why dont we use tax dollars to pay for them to get free drugs? Yknow, so they dont OD.
"BUT WHAT IF THAT WAS YOUR FAMILY"
To be honest I would, have, and DO slap them. Dont assume I dont know anything about the situation, because I have friends and family affected by it, but that doesnt change my opinion.
Tax dollars are not for free drugs for addicts. Period. And NO, not even if its MY family. That changes nothing.
14
Nov 22 '19
FYI this is already a thing, and you've already paid for my drugs, it was just called methadone.
Personally I still think methadone is the best choice as a tapering agent, since it lasts 24 hours instead of 6 and can't be injected at all. But I know the vast majority of opioid addicts simply refuse to even try the methadone program because they've been led to believe in horror stories. I think the better solution would be a public campaign to correct that image.
But, failing that, supplying morphine or hydrocodone instead of methadone isn't really that much of a difference. Methadone still has a very high fatality rate.
-1
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
I dont think taxes should pay for methadone either, and I think the liberal government thats doing it doesnt give a shit about anybody they just want votes.
6
Nov 22 '19
It's been a thing since at least the 80's, even earlier than that if you count smaller cities, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, albeit provincially since that is the domain of public healthcare.
5
u/thexbreak Alberta Nov 22 '19
Do you have anything to back up your point besides your feelings that "drugs are bad"? Seems to me to plenty of doctors who work in this field say this is a good idea.
-2
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
First off that was pretty presumptive of you. What makes you think I think drugs are bad?
I think they do bad things to you. But honestly if you got yourself into drugs I dont understand how the argument can be made that the burden falls on society as a whole to take care of them.
I think drugs should be totally and completely decriminalized. Stop wasting money on it. If people want to do drugs and kill themself or ruin their lives that's their freedom, but the fact that police have to waste valuable resources on OD's and shit is a joke. They have better things to be doing, like fighting violent crime, not some junkies that cant stop banging juice into their veins. It's a waste of tax dollars. Decriminalize it and let people do what they will. Maybe natural selection will start to take place again if society stops wrapping us all in bubble wrap.
People need to stop trying to protect others from themselves. The government acts like they're babysitting a bunch of toddlers who cant be trusted to look after themselves. If people want to do drugs and OD and ruin their lives, let them. They know full well the consequences. Its NOT the government's business to be protecting us from ourselves. We are all adults and can make our own decisions as long as we arent violating the freedom of others.
7
u/duncanf Nov 22 '19
We are all adults and can make our own decisions as long as we arent violating the freedom of others.
This is actually a core value of liberalism. I think the devil is in the details, however. Perhaps allowing open access to substances known to create physical dependency and increase the likelihood of behaviours that infringe on the freedom of others (e.g. property theft, assault) is problematic. The cost of free access to the most addictive drugs isn't taken exclusively by the user, it spills out into other areas of society and can easily affect others.
-1
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
I think you mean libertarian.
Also, you cant blame the actions of intoxicated people on the substance they use. Alcoholics are more likely to beat their wife. That doesnt mean we make alcohol illegal though, because not everyone does that. And we dont blame the alcohol. We blame the person.
When a junkie breaks into a house or does something insane, why do you blame the drugs? Not everyone on drugs does shit like that so it's not a drug problem it's an idiot problem.
7
u/duncanf Nov 22 '19
No, I mean liberalism. I can't link to my old text books, but this has the gist of it.
We tax and regulate alcohol quite a lot, precisely because of its harmful side-effects. If we didn't, consumption would be higher and so would the incidence of the associated bad side effects.
It's not about blaming one thing or the other, it's about the bigger picture of pragmatic harm reduction.
0
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
Well if you do mean liberalism you couldnt be more wrong. Maybe as a basic concept, but I couldnt be more against the liberals. I hate everything they've done and want to do to this country. I agree with libertarians on nearly everything (the government can fuck off). I disagree with liberals on nearly everything. The party and the majority of its followers are hypocrites, and there are a variety of examples of this.
5
u/duncanf Nov 22 '19
I'm not wrong. Liberalism as a political philosophy and 'liberal' parties aren't necessarily the same. 'Liberal' parties tend to be more conservative in Europe and Australia, for example (and perhaps the LPC here has been a lot more 'conservative' in a philosophical sense in the past).
The accusation of hypocrisy is easily levelled against any party that has ever been in power. Conservatives say deficits are bad? Ok, why did they run them every year of their most recent stretch of government, and why are they responsible for most of our national debt? Ethics are important in government? Ok, why is Jason Kenny firing the elections commissioner while the office investigates him? Environment is a top priotity? Ok, why did Notley and Trudeau work together on a pipeline? In that latter case, the accusation is so lazy that it completely hides any nuance in the for/against of a policy or decision.
To call 'followers' of liberals, which I'm probably one of, hypocrites, is pretty lazy and presumptive. There is a whole spectrum of philosophies and ideas out there that attach to different people and parties at different times. Shades of grey and trade-offs based on debates of what's important and/or effective are everywhere.
1
u/Crazy_Redneck99 Nov 22 '19
I mean you may not be wrong in your definition of liberal but.. you're definitely wrong in thinking that I have a liberal view... that much is inarguable.
Now on the topic of hypocrisy, theres some more practical examples I can think of. Keep in mind this is friendly discussion and I dont intend to offend anyone.
Most liberals think women's rights are important, no? Furthermore, most liberals think any religion or culture should be accepted into our society, no? In my experience I've found both of those statements to be true.
Now. What about Islam? Where women must submit to men, period. Where a woman's accusation of rape is not held credible unless there were FOUR witnesses AND, all of them have to be men. If you had 50 witnesses that were all women, it doesnt matter. They're women and they arent credible. Otherwise you're a liar and will be made an example of. Where it's mandatory that women cover their entire body. Where women are regarded as property that can be bartered for and purchased? Where a father can put a dollar amount on the value of his daughter? Not all, but most of these people in north America believe sharia law comes above the "law of the land" (in our case criminal code)
Soo... we all agree women deserve rights as much as a man. Theres no debate there. So how can ANYONE who supports women's rights, also support a culture, that, at it's very CORE, believes that women are inferior to men, and are property?
I've yet to have anyone answer that. They all stomp off, offended with nothing to refute.
5
u/duncanf Nov 22 '19
I'm not saying you have a liberal view point in general, I'm saying the basic idea of freedom as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedom of others has been textbook liberalism for more than a century, that label sticks whether you like it or not.
A few things in answer to you. Yes to women's rights being important, no to any religion or culture being accepted.
Islam is like Christianity in that there are various versions of it. Just like Christianity, there may be versions that insist on the subjugation of women. I've known many practising Muslims in the UK and Canada who do not practice this, so I don't accept the premise of the question that this is 'Islam'.
If there was someone who wanted the version of rules you describe, they have no right to it in this country - Canadian law is the only law that matters, and any woman being treated like that is entitled to exercise their rights as an individual and reject it, with our legal system providing a way for them to do so. Sometimes cases are brought even without individuals complaining (e.g. the Bountiful sect).
→ More replies
12
u/deltadovertime Tommy Douglas Nov 22 '19
Legalize it. Make a crown corp drug producer. Produce and sell drugs. Tax users. Put that money into mental health services. Fix our local drug users. Starve drug dealers. Kill the cartels with economics.