I have to admit I didn’t read any of it, but over the weekend I noticed that series of hers, and the topic, and thought Oh good lord, her of all people! It’s just wrong.
Dawg,
A correction on the correction that appeared in the Globe: Britain's drug maintenance program was phased out in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Can't blame that on Maggie.
Incidentally, the program was in place from the time drugs were first criminalized (post-WWI) in the UK. In the five decades following, Canada and the USA developed the "drug problems" we are all familiar with today. But not Britain. There was no black market. No criminal subculture. No "drug violence." No ghettoes filled with derelicts.
For anyone interested, more here:http://www.dangardner.ca/Archjan1804.html
Dan:
That was a very interesting article. I've done an Update to note it.
In practice those licenses were restricted to doctors working in special treatment clinics, which were established at the same time or at other hospitals where addicts could be treated. The consequence has been a reduction not an increase in the availability of heroin.
For a brief period, it was a policy of many of the clinics to prescribe heroin for addicts for maintenance. But most clinics quickly switched to injectable and later oral methadone. By the mid-70's, the majority had abandoned long-term maintenance.
Source
The concept of "safe" injection sites is perverse. Why not safe binge-drinking sites for alcoholics or safe cutting sites for self-mutilators?
I fully agree that enforcement will never cure the drug problem in society, and I also agree that prevention and treatment are underfunded, but I will never agree with sanctioned injections; it is too much like giving a drowning man an anchor.
"In the UK, as a correspondent in today's Globe and Mail reminds us, there was once a cheap program that involved registering heroin addicts and providing their drug legally."
Thanks. I've been looking for that example for some time. As I recall, the approach was to label heroin addicts as having a mental illness, getting them into the medical system, and proscribing their drugs from the government program.
In terms of getting these addicts off the drugs, it was slow going. I've heard that only 5% managed to quit each year, which was the average without the program. However, it was the other benefits that impressed me. Organized crime was completely cut out of the loop. The addicts never returned to the street pushers, because the proscribed drugs were safer. Crime went down markedly, both in terms of addicts stealing for their habits, and in terms of organized crime losing a substantial portion of its revenue.
That is an approach I would like to see studied for Canada.
The fact that the program was cancelled by Margaret Thatcher suggests to me that it was cut down for partisan reasons, and that it might still be worthwhile to study.
I can't imagine why anyone would take a run at the harm reduction effort. Some errors are a great deal more potentially lethal than others and various addictions are hugely lethal. Reducing the harm to self and, Ms. Wente, others is surely a reasonable goal.
The UK program pretty much demonstrated that clean heroin at a near zero price has very few negative health, criminal or social effects. It is hardly something I want my kids to use but it is also not a surefire means to Hell.
Crack and meta amphetamines are a different story. So are a whole set of more exotic drugs as well as demon run in its street form.
Legalization could go some distance to removing the whole "heroin addict=criminal" reality but it is not clear that even full on legalization will deal well with non-heroin substance abuse issues. (It would, however, go a long way to eliminating the whole super profit motive.)
A four pillars approach in a drug legal environment would be a novel and potentially successful approach. Very few of the addicts I have known have have a) wanted to be addicts, b) been unwilling to kick, c) had anything like the resources to give it a shot.
Providing those resources is a critical. But, realistically, a place of trust has to be created. Safe injection sites are a start.
two times in one day...
Jay we have to stop meeting like this...
Why not safe binge-drinking sites for alcoholics
Fenris, come to Ottawa and hit the Chateau Lafayette or the Maple Leaf Tavern. We got em alright...
Jay,
Well said.
Actually, Mike's joke actually is one of those insightful and funny things (funsightful, as we like to say on another site I frequent)...
A good bar wants you to come back, doesn't want you to die of over drinking or crashing your car, and will make sure you're alive and well when you leave.
Isn't that a safe drinking site?
Hell the right should be behind this... it would be a great way to make money.
Excellent post, Dawg -- her series was loaded with hyperbole and errors, thanks for doing the research to point these out.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
