Keeping Heroin Users Safe From The Police

Bush Country ^ | 07/01/03 | Paul Walfield

[William Terrell]

What's the point of not posting the whole article?

---

Keeping Heroin Users Safe From The Police

By Paul Walfield

In the so-called war against illegal drugs, we have lost every battle. Clear across the globe, just about every concerted effort to eradicate drug use has failed. The given reasons for the dismal results are many, but the prevailing theory is that there is just too much money involved in the drug trade. So much so that the key people fighting the war get paid off, and the “war” is in reality just a “war” in name only. While there might be spectacular sounding successes reported on the evening news, the reality on the ground is never a real setback for the drug cartels.

Statistics vary, but most everyone involved in the matter would agree that the vast majority of criminal conduct involves drugs in some manner. Directly or indirectly, drugs appear to be at the root of a lot of of the crimes committed in the United States and many other western nations.

Generally speaking, you aren’t going to put much of a dent in the drug trade by going after or harassing a small number of drug users who are unable to pay off anyone to leave them alone. There needed to be a better way of dealing with them, a different way of handling low-end drug users. So, along comes rough and gruff Larry Campbell. He is the mayor of Vancouver. If anyone can think outside the box, it has to be the Canadians. Larry was once a policeman who worked on drug cases.

According to Time Magazine, in a July 7, 2003, article Larry lamented, “I think all you have to do is take a look at your prison system and your law enforcement to see if the drug war is being won in the States. It's an unmitigated disaster and they know it, but they can't back out of it.” Larry thinks he has a better way. In fact, according to the Las Vegas Sun, so do the majority of voters in Vancouver, Canada, Larry Campbell “won election last year on a platform that promised safe injection sites.”

That is correct, the mayor and the people of Vancouver Canada want their drug addicts, specifically the ones on heroin and cocaine to have safe places, comfortable rooms with medical personnel and free of police to shoot up. And so, Vancouver has become the first place in the Western hemisphere to cater to hard drug users. Time Magazine calls it a, “surrender.” Actually, it probably isn’t a surrender, but it is stupid.

The Canadians say they are doing it to keep the addicts safe from disease and safe from the police. According to an AP story on June 27, 2003, “Ann Livingston of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users said allowing addicts to inject at supervised sites will reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, while protecting them from arrest on the streets.” Adding, “It is simply a public health initiative to do what's logical and compassionate and effective.”

As to why it was important for the folks in Vancouver, Canada to ensure the safety of their hard drug users from arrest by the police was not clearly explained, which is a bit puzzling, especially in a town who has a mayor that was a member of a drug squad when he was a police officer.

Though, we should take the Canadian officials at their word, namely, they want to keep their drug addicts healthy enough to shoot up another day. After all, Canada has socialized medicine. If a drug addict gets sick, it can get very expensive.

By setting up “shooting galleries,” with nurses in attendance during injection and “chill out” rooms after partaking of the drugs, Canadians can ostensibly appear to be embracing the lowest dregs of society and saving some cash in the long run. Now that is progressive thinking; at least as far as liberals can take it without causing them headaches.

On the other hand, some people may find it to be rather despicable. Governments that are in effect condoning, aiding and abetting criminal behavior. As far as can be discerned, heroin and cocaine use is still illegal in Canada. There is also the problem of America’s addicts utilizing the Canadian facilities.

Additionally, there is the idea that making it easier to participate in a group, Canada is making drug taking fun before you even shoot up, which adds to the experience. Drug addicts may even be encouraged to sell Tupperware at their daily and weekly gatherings; maybe they can even sell drugs inside the Tupperware. After all, the drug users are ensured of a police-free drug experience, why not do some networking?

Then there is the concept that hard drug use is a slow form of suicide and by aiding the drug users, Canada is actually turning a blind eye and showing a cynical indifference to the plight of those poor souls, who if actively treated for their addiction could be cured.

Instead, Canada is facilitating and perpetuating a most horrid of the human conditions. Which not alone makes it safe for the people who are currently addicted; they made it safe for anyone who heretofore had not tried hard drugs to begin a spiral towards oblivion.

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) reports Larry Campbell as saying, “We have to start treating these people like human beings who have an illness and not like a criminal invading force.” For the Canadians, for progressives, you treat diseased individuals by perpetuating their disease. It is much like giving people with smallpox, blankets infected with the disease, to keep them warm on those cold Canadian nights. How progressive.

While the folks in Vancouver claim that they “hope” some of the patrons at their safe haven shooting galleries will seek counseling, they are not very optimistic about that happening and reportedly believe that perhaps 2 out of 100 addicts may voluntarily ask for help.

The Canadians, the Left, are so progressive in their thinking; they have gone full circle to no real thinking at all. Perhaps the only real “progressives” involved in this harebrained Canadian scheme will be the drug dealers’ bank accounts.

---

[steve50]

The WosD is never going to be won. The left hand of government runs the supply side while the right hand runs interdiction. Just a price support/franchise protection racket. Let Darwin sort it out long term. In the short term, our Constitution is more important than their war on some drug traffickers.

[angkor]

It's a global conglomerate with the combined size, revenues, employees, and resources of IBM, GM, Microsoft, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, and Procter & Gamble.

And the DEA is going to stop it?

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[gaspar]

In the above article replace the word "drugs" with the word "crime", or "sin". It's obvious that we'll never lick either one, so let's just give it up.

That is the Libertarian viewpoint. Thank God they are such a small minority.

[steve50]

Replace it with fatty foods or rap music. The point is it's a racket with both supply and interdiction being ran by the same people. The Constitution is more impotant than their monopoly.

[FreePaul]

And the DEA is going to stop it?

NO! NO! Don't even think of that. The DEA is going to keep it going as long as it can get money from the taxpayers to fight the drug cartels while making sure that they stay in business.

[bc2]

Your definition of crime is wrong. Can you assault yourself? Can you defraud yourself? Can you press charges against yourself for damaging your own property?

The initiation of force or fraud upon another or his property is a crime. Nothing else. When Johnny breaks into your car to pay for his drug use, it is the action of theft that is the crime, not his drug use. What if Johnny goes to work every day to support his drug use, the same as people work all week and go to the bar on Friday night.

This is the definition of crime. An action may be "bad" or "immoral" or even "sinful" but until that action is the initiation of force or fraud against another person or their property, the action is not a crime.

[FITZ]

In the so-called war against illegal drugs, we have lost every battle.

I'm not so sure we're losing every battle any more. Right after 9-11, people started saying that drugs were filling up warehouses in Juarez and then they started saying that to lower the amounts, they were being sold cheap on that side. Now it's reported that cocaine use in Mexico is up 700% and 75% of their school students have used drugs.

It's fine with me if they suffer the consequences of the drugs they push instead of us. Violent crime rates in Juarez are extremely high ---but in El Paso are very low. I won't say "nothing" is being done.

[FITZ]

Then there is the concept that hard drug use is a slow form of suicide and by aiding the drug users, Canada is actually turning a blind eye and showing a cynical indifference to the plight of those poor souls, who if actively treated for their addiction could be cured.

What happens here in this area (I don't know about other areas) is when the hard drug users don't have their normal drugs, they turn to aerosol paints ---silver paint ---and you can see it on their hands. That gets them retarded quite quickly, they can't figure out how to burglarize a home anymore, they end up laying on some cot having epileptic seizures the rest of their lives ---but they quit being a problem to the rest of us.

[dfrussell]

If someone wants to shoot heroin, a law is not going to stop them.

By criminalizing the activity, an underground economy is created where none previously existed and people whose only crime should have been stupidity become wards of the state for long periods of time and have their marketability substantially reduced when they are released.

The "War on Drugs" is really a very convenient mechanism to provide unrecorded payments to people.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[MrLeRoy]

I'm not so sure we're losing every battle any more. Right after 9-11, people started saying that drugs were filling up warehouses in Juarez

Did that have any measurable effect on overall U.S. supplies? If not, we're still losing every battle.

[dennisw]

A loser nation makes heroin legal. You want to live in a loser nation? Start executing H dealers and make treatment compulsory for addicts.

[dennisw]

Execute the drug pushers. Works for me. Only losers who don't mind living in a loser nation want to legalize hard drugs

[jmc813]

Execute the drug pushers.

But not the drunk drivers.

[MrLeRoy]

Execute the drug pushers.

That wouldn't make a significant difference. Dealers now face an imminent threat of death from competitors or twitchy customers, yet they continue dealing, and when one dies or is arrested another springs up to take his place.

[dfrussell]

A loser nation makes heroin legal. You want to live in a loser nation? Start executing H dealers and make treatment compulsory for addicts.

Heroin/opium was legal until the early part of last century and the number (or percentage) of heroin addicts was far than less today after many years of the War on Drugs.

By any measure, it's been a major failure.

There is no indication that "treatment" for addicts does anything, and in schools, DARE, has also produced no measureable effect.