Posted on 06/03/2006 12:37:09 PM PDT by Know your rights
Switzerland's policy of offering heroin addicts substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine has led to a decline in the number of new heroin users in Zurich, according to a paper published in this week's issue of The Lancet.
Switzerland has implemented various policies to try and reduce harm to dependent heroin users, including needle-exchange services, low-threshold methadone programmes, and heroin-assisted treatments. However, critics say that these policies may lead to a growing number of new drug users and lengthen the period of heroin addiction.
To investigate, Carlos Nordt and Rudolf Stohler from the Psychiatric University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland analysed data from over 7250 patients in Zurich who presented for substitution treatments with methadone or buprenorphine over 13 years from 1991. From this data they estimated trends in the number of new heroin users. They found that the incidence of heroin use dropped from 850 new users in 1990 to 150 in 2002. The authors contrast the situation with heroin use in the UK, Italy, and Australia, which has continued to rise. They also found a low cessation (quit) rate and therefore, the overall number of heroin dependents, whether in treatment or not, only declined by 4% per year.
Dr Nordt states: "As the Swiss population supported this drug policy, this medicalisation of opiate dependence changed the image of heroin use as a rebellious act to an illness that needs therapy. Finally, heroin seems to have become a 'loser drug', with its attractiveness fading for young people. Nevertheless, whether drug policy had a positive effect on the number of new heroin users or not, our data could not confirm an increase of heroin incidence as expected by the critics of the liberal Swiss drug policy."
THERE IS NO CHOICE BETWEEN STINKING FISH.
.
"Meth is much harder on its users than is heroin "
.
Find an instance where I ever have and get back to me.
No comment on the Official Swiss Government source?
VonMises.org had an email out recently describing how Somalia can function [such as it does] without a true central Government. It is very much a clan or tribal thing. There wasn't that much in the article in terms of making that case that this was a good thing. The email did to some extent explain why the half hearted attempt at humanitarian aid and nation building a la the 1990s was doomed to failure.
BTW as I understand it,the anarchist wing of the small "l" libertarians, really does exist. Rothbard a leading libertarian of the recent past was an advocate of no government. I consider myself to be a libertarian, but Rothbard's belief in the idea of the benefits of anarchy is / was total nonsense.
Obviously, the findings of a sociologist on the payroll of a parliamentary-socialist government hold more sway with you than I.
Did you want to debate specifics?
If so, the first thing I'd like to know is what method the Swiss used for counting junkies in Zurich in 1996, and what method they use today.
I'd also like to know what method the "regressives" (Britian, Italy, Australia) use to do the same.
We'll go from there.
Nanny-state & libertarian are mutually exclusive. A truly libertarian country would let the junkies kill themselves, which is ok by me, except that they steal & push their junk on kids to pay for their habit.
The Swiss are simply trying something different, that MIGHT work, or MIGHT NOT. We know for sure that the current WOD is a failure - just look around. Drugs are plentiful in the US & Europe.
Perhaps the Swiss have figured out that the crime & drug dealing is WAY worse than giving the junkies their daily fix. Maybe they figure that if the junkies are not buying on the street, the street dealers will dry up for lack of steady customers. The counseling that accompanies the free fix MIGHT convince some of the junkies to quit - their dealer certainly wont.
If someone needed my help, I would give it. If what I was doing was not helping, but was making things worse, I would TRY SOMETHING ELSE. To continue to do the wrong thing is to become part of the problem.
If Somalia was Libertarian they wouldn't be having the problems they're having now.
And, for the record, the article you link to isn't a seperate study supporting the findings from The Lancet/Zurich University study. It is a story about The Lancet/Zurich U study. So if I wasted your precious time, we're even.
That might have been true, before libertarians allowed themselves to be wholly defined by their pro-drug platform. Now, they seem to be attracting users looking to rationalize their own behavior, instead of consitutionally-minded citizens trying to move America towards a more limited government.
Switzerland is absolutely a nanny-state for junkies. Mandatory treatment is merely part of the mandatory health-care agenda. And libertarians are on board with it, even if it is the antithesis of everything they supposedly stand for, because it's part of a relaxed drug policy. If the two are mutually exclusive, someone down at LP headquarters better blast-fax the faithful and let them know about it before they end up with Bill Maher as the party chairman.
Arguing against the WOD is one thing. Arguing in favor of Switzerland's socialist junkie-maintenance program is quite another.
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
For the Netherlands-- "Demand Reduction. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users. [my note: in a total population of 15.1 million]
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
_______________________________________
Using a population of 3 million for Singapore in 1996, that works out to an addiction rate of about 0.30%.
Using the State Dept. figures for the Netherlands, and a population of 15.1 million, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.
Also note that the Singapore figure only takes into account the addicts under treatment, whereas the figure for Holland is the estimate of the total number of addicts.
Also, the Netherlands is overrun with Muzzies who would just as soon cut off your head as look at you. Compare crime rates with the lenient European countries to a strict county like Singapore and the comparison is a bit more valid. Drug use feeds crime, though there is a need to differentiate between the basically victimless soft drugs like cannabis (for which decriminalization is perhaps a logical alternative) and hard drugs like heroin.
It's hard to suggest they're not a drain on the taxpayers when the rate of welfare dependency is at 28%. Before the liberalization of Switzerland's drug laws, the rate was at 17% (Britain is 18%, Australia is 17%, US is 14%).
Regardless, even if what you say is true, and Switzerland has an abundance of productive heroin addicts in the workforce, it doesn't change the fact that they have no idea whether or not decriminalization has actually led to diminished heroin use. And that was the main finding of this study.
Your bias is showing
I wasn't trying to conceal it. Then again, I'm not getting paid to conduct surveys on social issues.
I'd like to see personal growth decriminalized. That would be a major blow to the traffickers, and a major relief for law enforcement.
Cannabis is definitely the least of our problems.
You do that a lot. It's like the chat-room equivalent of the Al Gore off-camera debate sneer. Very effective.
You rant against the use of statistics in one post yet use them in the next!
Of course, I realized this would be your reaction as I wrote it. I did it anyway, because I was using the statistic to counter one specific, completely unfounded statement you made about how taxpayer dollars were spent in Switzerland. Not to make an argument against legalization.
Also, I didn't rant against statistics. I said they can be used to show whatever you want them to show. Which is still true.
What is your source for those percentages?
Funny how everything I say requires a source, while everything you say should just be accepted on its face. I'll show you my sources for welfare dependency statistics when you show me your source for the stats that show all the productive junkies decriminalization has created and all the money they've saved the Swiss taxpayers. Since that was what I was responding to, I think it's only fair that you back it up with the hard data you constantly demand before proceeding with this any further.
You might want to compare the conditions in Sweden, where they've adopted the UN's "zero tolerance" policies on even "soft drugs" like cannabis.
Yet, it's not a fact at all. It's a conclusion one study came to based on the number of people seeking substiution treatment, giving no consideration to the possibility that fewer people might seek treatment for a drug in a society which has decriminalized said drug.
And the study says nothing about overall "drug use". It applies specifically to heroin, giving no consideration to the cyclical popularity of specific drugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.