Four years ago, the Canadian province of British Columbia gave addicts legal access to fentanyl and other opioids, hoping to reduce hospitalizations and deaths. The results have been catastrophic.
More deaths the better. They want us all dead, diseased, or in disarray. Control and depopulation is the ultimate end game. Why is a great question - but it's apparent that the world is speeding in that direction. And objecting to any of it is fascist, racist, insensitive, insane... Once they figured out how dumb and docile most of us were, the accelerator was pressed to the floor. What a time to be alive. Keep fighting the good fight, Berenson.
He walks a fine line to maintain some journalistic "credibility" with the biased controlled media. +/- the occasional personal bias, which I suppose we all have. Whenever I get annoyed at him or Bari Weiss, I remember where they came from ideo-sociologically (NYC, baby!) and sometimes I am impressed how AB has changed his mind over time. His marijauna book is in some ways "Only Nixon could go to China" as if it were written by a social conservative it would be even more ignored.
Yep. Straddling that fence a bit to appear grounded to some form of reality even though some of the most far out shit is very real. I get it. Glad he’s doing what he’s doing. Bari as well.
Legalizing all drug use is easier for them than using their new suicide law. No pesky paperwork to fill out. These ideologues are insane and instead of acknowledging their programs are a disaster, they double down on them.
Creating a culture of despair is also in-line with the oligarchs' goals. The "better" people IMHO kill themselves, every so often someone snaps and shoots up a gun-free zone, and then they justify even more control over physical and informational means of resistance.
Canada is a case study in why it's really a bad idea to be nice, polite, winsome, "nonracist", "reasonable" westerners. The ratchet only goes one way. Minnesota in the US is kind of like Canada in a petri dish.
Any moralizing about drugs is just for the fashion sense of the upper-middle and above classes, "everyone knows" legalizing drugs is a good idea, right? WEF et al don't care about the actual culture, just does it achieve their means. They went with neocons in the 2000's, full-tile boogie trans/drugs/racialism/nihilism last few years, now they're pivoting back this week when they smell they need to use populist memes to achieve their ends.
In my world (medical examiner), all that easy access to naloxone means is that now users come to autopsy with a history of multiple “rescues.” Until the last time. Oh, and btw, some of the fentanyl analogs are so potent that even multiple naloxone doses are ineffective...
Did you see the latest government sanctioned fraud concerning EVs? The manufacturers are allowed a special way to calculate the range of their EVs. In other words, lie about it.
Like the FAA. Airlines are allowed to calculate "on-time departures" by the time the plane leaves the gate. It doesn't matter if the plane pulls back and SITS there for hours. The plane "departed."
Similarly, "on-time arrivals" are based on the time the wheels touch the runway....even though it might be an hour before the plane pulls up to the gate.
I live in this f--ked up province. The goobermint also decriminalized all drugs. You are allowed a gram. The dealers send out one gram at a time. The amount of people with tomb stones in their eyes has increased dramatically. The town I live next to of about 20,000 is full of junkies now since these changes were put in place. Crime is through the roof. This is what happens when socialist retards are in charge. A great doc out there is Canada is dying put out by Aaron Gunn on youtube. A complete shit storm of nonsense, I and many others are so tired of this bull shit.
I live here too and could not agree with you more. I call supporters of this insane drug policy “double O’s” to their face. When queried on what I mean by that, I respond “licensed to kill”.
Alex, Well there are literally millions of deaths from the various useless covid responses, and no one has admitted to anything other than being paragons of virtue from that debacle. So what are a few thousand overdose deaths? If millions does not get you to admit the truth, thousands do not even register. Besides you cannot admit anything when you self-define yourself as being right all the time.
Harm reduction is horrific and I am appalled that it's accepted as a viable option for any program. Look at Oregon and Washington specifically.
Naloxone is dangerous because it might temporarily save a person, but someone is ten times more likely to overdose within a year if they were given naloxone and "saved". We're essentially reviving people so they can kill themselves. It's inhumane.
The BILLIONS of dollars the states and federal government have put into the homeless crisis only to increase homelessness goes hand in hand with the destigmatization of drugs and the legalization of not only marijuana, but in some cities opioids. Don't they see the correlation?
The people who see your logic continue to remain silent. Those that dont, scream at you villainize you as "moralist." When di d having morals become a bad thing?
I think too many people are desensitized to what's going on. Clearly, we need to solve the homeless problem. They are homeless for a variety of reasons -- some just in bad circumstances, veterans suffering from PTSD and self-medicating, drug addicts, the mentally ill. There are "vagrants" -- there have been vagrants (bums, hobos?) for hundreds of years. They were never a problem until 1) addiction skyrocketed and 2) the mentally ill stopped be cared for by families and government. (Not to mention that drug addiction kills brain cells and creates mental illness.) There is no one solution, but the fact that California alone spends more than $10 billion a year -- and the local governments spend billions as well -- and the problem has gotten worse tells me that they are fueling the problem. It's easy to say, "They made their choices, they should live with their choices" but these are HUMAN BEINGS who are literally dying on the streets, sick, addicted, hurting themselves and others. We need to stop promoting drug use (i.e. harm reduction), stop allowing people to live on the street, provide REAL services to get people clean, treat the mentally ill (yes, that might mean asylums for some), and stop telling people this is a housing problem when we all know it's a drug and mental illness problem. I don't think we should spend MORE money -- we've spent plenty of money. But it's spent wrong and it's been wasted and fraud and corruption are built into the system. I have a friend who's a social worker who works with the homeless and he calls it the homeless industrial complex -- a lot of people will be out of work if we actually fix the problems.
Unfortunatley too many repeat your first sentence and do not break it down like you did. Different problems - different solutions
1. Circumstance is easily addressed assuming we do not have a 1930 Depression again.
2. Mentally ill - we need to re-institutionalize. to be fair may of the families who "abandoned" their own were in untenable, and possibly dangerous, conditions. I would not want to point any fingers, living with a severely mentally ill person is hell.....and dangerous.
3. Drug addict. Same as 2.
4. Hobos - you are right they have always existed, Andy they will survice, but they need to follow the rules.
Items 2&3 require carrots and sticks. The carrot is treatment and dignified living conditions. The stick is incarceration or institutionalization. all life is abut choices and even people in these circumstances recognize that. If mot they are spo seriously mentally ill, they are no longer rational and need to be institutionlized
Because these are human being s and deserve a chance to live with dignity.
I agree 100%. The government has failed. They have spent billions and helped very few people. The non-profits that the government funds have little accountability and no transparency. They waste money, they don't actually help people, they pass the buck. Some do help -- but they are few and far between. One entity in LA had their government grant revoked because they required sobriety -- now they operate solely on private contributions. No one in the position to help these people actually goes out to talk to them and HELP them. (My fiscal conservatism screams when I see the waste. We could have solved the problem with HALF the money already spent if we actually addressed the problems.)
you have to assume they do not want to solve the problem, and not is some kind of permanent bureaucracy way, but to prove a point. More of "I told you we suck and this proves it."
Asylums for a lot. I used to go to a lot of institutions ( even after the purge)for work. Typical history was that they were found “wandering” on the street and brought in. They stayed for decades.
Allison, your first sentence is interesting. “Harm reduction is horrific…..for any program. “. Proponents of abortion programs often cite harm reduction as a reason to allow it and a goal of their programs.
I was specifically speaking about harm reduction re: drugs. I've never heard of the term being used to justify abortion. Doesn't mean they don't use it -- though it makes me sad.
You’re right. I don’t think they use the actual words “harm reduction” to justify abortion. They just make arguments that amount to that term. Like having the child will result in the parents life being harder with a child, like the child being unwanted creates a harder life for the child, etc. (no child = less harm, they essentially say)
My mom was a single mom in 1969. I thank God every day she didn't get an abortion (which my father wanted her to get because he didn't want another child -- he had one from his ex-wife. I never had a relationship with him.) I had a great childhood and my mom had a great support system with my grandparents.
Amen. And I'll add that one reason I try very, very hard never to give into stereotypes is because of my grandparents. My mom was 24, pregnant out of wedlock. My grandma was Catholic, my grandpa a Southern Baptist (that in and of itself was rare when they married in 1940!) She was terrified to go home and tell them, but she did. My grandpa -- who was very strict from what I've heard -- said, stay, we'll take care of you and the baby. And that was it. We lived with my grandparents for the first three years of my life (my grandpa died when I was 2 and a half) and my grandma watched me while my mom worked. I have never doubted that I was loved. And my father was an asshole. I've forgiven him, but I didn't want a relationship with him when I found him at 18.
The homelessness crisis is very lucrative. Government or State funded programs are an excellent way for politicians and their friends to syphon money. The homelessness crisis will never end as long as it's a way to make easy money.
So the Canadians have figured out how to get people to their desired goal - i.e.; assisted suicide. They’ve just done it in a way that exponentially increases both the moral rot and the size and power of the Canadian bureaucracy. Genius.
Spot on. It is impossible not to see the connection between this story and Canada's increasingly aggressive push of its MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) program.
Beats me. The country seems to be a bundle of contadictions. My book club just read The Day the World Came to Town about all the Newfoundlanders who took plane passengers into their own homes for going on a week when transatlantic air traffic was grounded there on 9/11. But then we read that at least some Canadians are OK with addicts and the mentally ill being left to die -- indeed, being encouraged and helped to die. It doesn't add up. But the cynical view, I guess, is that however nice or kind Canadians may be as individuals, their government has a vested interest in reducing the number of patients trying to use its overburdened health care system.
In Canada some people have to wait a year or more to have surgery because of their socialized healthcare system. Imagine if they weren't spending millions on giving addicts free drugs and "supervised" places to do drugs.
Yes. Imagine. And this just illustrates that every policy choice, even if well-intentioned (which I question here) has a cost/ opportunity cost associated with it.
As much as I believe in freedom of choice and being left alone by the government, it's clear that drug legalization carries a very heavy price. And the idea of the government actually supplying recreational drugs or drugs for addicts makes me sick.
Are you sure that this laissez-faire solution is not a deliberate policy to solve a non-solvable problem by giving to the public an outcome that is sure to end in a final solution? "Murder by benign neglect." or let the buyer beware? (Cavate Emptor) You could also salve the politician's psyche by introducing a bill that resolves the issue by blaming the participating buyer/taker as his/her own damn fault. You could also brand them as risk-takers akin to mountain climbers, scuba divers, or sky divers. All professions that have a high death rate.
to your original point, i do not give that that much credit. that sounds liek something I would think of. "Try it your way and if it fails...." You have to assume that these are the preferred results.
I have become deeply ambivalent about this issue. As with the Covid shots, for decades I've endorsed the view "my body, my choice." Don't try prohibit or control their use, and for heaven's sake don't try to mandate them.
That said, the drug war has gone on for so long now that trafficker networks have evolved into small armies of heavily armed thugs. Historically, I've argued that legalizing (not "decriminalizing") hard drugs would enable reputable manufacturers to market products with known levels of quantity and quality per standardized dose.
But in this day and age, I'm afraid that even large pharmaceutical companies would be unable to resist the violence and threats from nihilistic drug gangs, so the only solution (if there is one) is to declare a real war and send in the cruise missiles and Special Operations Forces against drug lords' compounds. No quarter. And no, I would not accept the presence of civilians at the target sites being used as an excuse to shield the MFers.
This scenario - total war waged against the drug lords and cartels - was the subject of Frederick Forsyth's 2009 thriller The Cobra. The story is riveting because Forsyth brings so much geo-political reality into his account. How The Cobra story turns out in the end is not what you expect.
I have to confess to being in the camp of those that thought that decriminalizing with controlled access to drugs would reduce deaths. I have to admit that this is strong evidence that it doesn’t work. I still would like to see something done about the crime associated with addicts getting money and the fortunes earned in selling the drugs.
I always wondered if the easy access to Naloxone would reduce ODs. I can remember back when Congress was holding hearings about mandatory seat belts. (Yes, I’m that old). A PhD testified about the perception of safety and its relation to risk. He posed something that went like this... Take 200 cars and equip 100 with seatbelts and the other 100 with a knife blade on the steering wheel pointing at the driver. At the end of one year of driving which set of 100 cars would have the highest accident and death rate????
I have to say I'm disappointed in this article. There is a major issue that seems to never be discussed in all drug related issues. Having known drug addicts, there is both a physical addiction (to the addictive substance), and also a mental one (a reason someone turns to drugs). Addiction can never be cured or controlled without addressing the mental aspect as it's typically the most important. Many people are prescribed opioids after surgeries and other medical procedures and never become addicts. The dangers of these drugs are not only the substances, but also in the mental state that leads to someone becoming addicted in the first place. What will it take for those in charge to finally recognize this?
1. BC was giving away the drugs for free, which is nuts. How many people who lived elsewhere came to BC to get free drugs?
2. The OD trend was going up before 2020, so it likely would have continued to go up. You can't necessarily assign cause to the new drug program (much like diseases were going down when vaccines came along, and vaccines claimed credit for the decline). Why were ODs going up, and where would it be today, even without free drugs?
More deaths the better. They want us all dead, diseased, or in disarray. Control and depopulation is the ultimate end game. Why is a great question - but it's apparent that the world is speeding in that direction. And objecting to any of it is fascist, racist, insensitive, insane... Once they figured out how dumb and docile most of us were, the accelerator was pressed to the floor. What a time to be alive. Keep fighting the good fight, Berenson.
AB would likey call you a conspiracy theorist.
Maybe. He'll figure it out.
He walks a fine line to maintain some journalistic "credibility" with the biased controlled media. +/- the occasional personal bias, which I suppose we all have. Whenever I get annoyed at him or Bari Weiss, I remember where they came from ideo-sociologically (NYC, baby!) and sometimes I am impressed how AB has changed his mind over time. His marijauna book is in some ways "Only Nixon could go to China" as if it were written by a social conservative it would be even more ignored.
Yep. Straddling that fence a bit to appear grounded to some form of reality even though some of the most far out shit is very real. I get it. Glad he’s doing what he’s doing. Bari as well.
Legalizing all drug use is easier for them than using their new suicide law. No pesky paperwork to fill out. These ideologues are insane and instead of acknowledging their programs are a disaster, they double down on them.
THIS
Creating a culture of despair is also in-line with the oligarchs' goals. The "better" people IMHO kill themselves, every so often someone snaps and shoots up a gun-free zone, and then they justify even more control over physical and informational means of resistance.
Canada is a case study in why it's really a bad idea to be nice, polite, winsome, "nonracist", "reasonable" westerners. The ratchet only goes one way. Minnesota in the US is kind of like Canada in a petri dish.
Any moralizing about drugs is just for the fashion sense of the upper-middle and above classes, "everyone knows" legalizing drugs is a good idea, right? WEF et al don't care about the actual culture, just does it achieve their means. They went with neocons in the 2000's, full-tile boogie trans/drugs/racialism/nihilism last few years, now they're pivoting back this week when they smell they need to use populist memes to achieve their ends.
Or maybe I'm not even paranoid enough.
In my world (medical examiner), all that easy access to naloxone means is that now users come to autopsy with a history of multiple “rescues.” Until the last time. Oh, and btw, some of the fentanyl analogs are so potent that even multiple naloxone doses are ineffective...
Thank you for additional real-world data points.
Definition of madness:
1. Harm reduction
2. Defund the police
(Optional) #3: Time for a booster shot!
Please STOP telling me that government acts in the best interests of the governed.
You forgot open borders
I would add eliminating fossil fuels in favor of" green energy". Two of their pet projects are crumbling, EVs and wind turbines.
Don't you LOVE hearing EV owners continue to try to justify and/or champion these things?
Even though the flooded EVs burst into flames after last year's Florida hurricane?
Even though it's too cold to charge them in Chicago?
Even though California asked EV owners NOT to charge them b/c the electric grid couldn't handle the additional load?
Welcome to the NEW EDSEL!
Did you see the latest government sanctioned fraud concerning EVs? The manufacturers are allowed a special way to calculate the range of their EVs. In other words, lie about it.
Like the FAA. Airlines are allowed to calculate "on-time departures" by the time the plane leaves the gate. It doesn't matter if the plane pulls back and SITS there for hours. The plane "departed."
Similarly, "on-time arrivals" are based on the time the wheels touch the runway....even though it might be an hour before the plane pulls up to the gate.
Geez, what isn't rigged these days?
I live in this f--ked up province. The goobermint also decriminalized all drugs. You are allowed a gram. The dealers send out one gram at a time. The amount of people with tomb stones in their eyes has increased dramatically. The town I live next to of about 20,000 is full of junkies now since these changes were put in place. Crime is through the roof. This is what happens when socialist retards are in charge. A great doc out there is Canada is dying put out by Aaron Gunn on youtube. A complete shit storm of nonsense, I and many others are so tired of this bull shit.
I live here too and could not agree with you more. I call supporters of this insane drug policy “double O’s” to their face. When queried on what I mean by that, I respond “licensed to kill”.
Alex, Well there are literally millions of deaths from the various useless covid responses, and no one has admitted to anything other than being paragons of virtue from that debacle. So what are a few thousand overdose deaths? If millions does not get you to admit the truth, thousands do not even register. Besides you cannot admit anything when you self-define yourself as being right all the time.
Harm reduction is horrific and I am appalled that it's accepted as a viable option for any program. Look at Oregon and Washington specifically.
Naloxone is dangerous because it might temporarily save a person, but someone is ten times more likely to overdose within a year if they were given naloxone and "saved". We're essentially reviving people so they can kill themselves. It's inhumane.
The BILLIONS of dollars the states and federal government have put into the homeless crisis only to increase homelessness goes hand in hand with the destigmatization of drugs and the legalization of not only marijuana, but in some cities opioids. Don't they see the correlation?
Shop saying “ homeless.” most are vagrants who refuse to be helped and should be in insane asylums
The people who see your logic continue to remain silent. Those that dont, scream at you villainize you as "moralist." When di d having morals become a bad thing?
I think too many people are desensitized to what's going on. Clearly, we need to solve the homeless problem. They are homeless for a variety of reasons -- some just in bad circumstances, veterans suffering from PTSD and self-medicating, drug addicts, the mentally ill. There are "vagrants" -- there have been vagrants (bums, hobos?) for hundreds of years. They were never a problem until 1) addiction skyrocketed and 2) the mentally ill stopped be cared for by families and government. (Not to mention that drug addiction kills brain cells and creates mental illness.) There is no one solution, but the fact that California alone spends more than $10 billion a year -- and the local governments spend billions as well -- and the problem has gotten worse tells me that they are fueling the problem. It's easy to say, "They made their choices, they should live with their choices" but these are HUMAN BEINGS who are literally dying on the streets, sick, addicted, hurting themselves and others. We need to stop promoting drug use (i.e. harm reduction), stop allowing people to live on the street, provide REAL services to get people clean, treat the mentally ill (yes, that might mean asylums for some), and stop telling people this is a housing problem when we all know it's a drug and mental illness problem. I don't think we should spend MORE money -- we've spent plenty of money. But it's spent wrong and it's been wasted and fraud and corruption are built into the system. I have a friend who's a social worker who works with the homeless and he calls it the homeless industrial complex -- a lot of people will be out of work if we actually fix the problems.
Unfortunatley too many repeat your first sentence and do not break it down like you did. Different problems - different solutions
1. Circumstance is easily addressed assuming we do not have a 1930 Depression again.
2. Mentally ill - we need to re-institutionalize. to be fair may of the families who "abandoned" their own were in untenable, and possibly dangerous, conditions. I would not want to point any fingers, living with a severely mentally ill person is hell.....and dangerous.
3. Drug addict. Same as 2.
4. Hobos - you are right they have always existed, Andy they will survice, but they need to follow the rules.
Items 2&3 require carrots and sticks. The carrot is treatment and dignified living conditions. The stick is incarceration or institutionalization. all life is abut choices and even people in these circumstances recognize that. If mot they are spo seriously mentally ill, they are no longer rational and need to be institutionlized
Because these are human being s and deserve a chance to live with dignity.
I agree 100%. The government has failed. They have spent billions and helped very few people. The non-profits that the government funds have little accountability and no transparency. They waste money, they don't actually help people, they pass the buck. Some do help -- but they are few and far between. One entity in LA had their government grant revoked because they required sobriety -- now they operate solely on private contributions. No one in the position to help these people actually goes out to talk to them and HELP them. (My fiscal conservatism screams when I see the waste. We could have solved the problem with HALF the money already spent if we actually addressed the problems.)
you have to assume they do not want to solve the problem, and not is some kind of permanent bureaucracy way, but to prove a point. More of "I told you we suck and this proves it."
Worked for a mosquito commission spraying the streets over 50 years ago. “ take it easy” if you do too good a job we won't have one next year.
Liberals see letting the homeless be homeless as compassionate when it is just the opposite.
you are corect but not only does it showcase thier compassion it shows that you do not care at the same time.
you are corect but not only does it showcase thier compassion it shows that you do not care at the same time.
Asylums for a lot. I used to go to a lot of institutions ( even after the purge)for work. Typical history was that they were found “wandering” on the street and brought in. They stayed for decades.
Poor souls.
Exactly
Allison, your first sentence is interesting. “Harm reduction is horrific…..for any program. “. Proponents of abortion programs often cite harm reduction as a reason to allow it and a goal of their programs.
I was specifically speaking about harm reduction re: drugs. I've never heard of the term being used to justify abortion. Doesn't mean they don't use it -- though it makes me sad.
You’re right. I don’t think they use the actual words “harm reduction” to justify abortion. They just make arguments that amount to that term. Like having the child will result in the parents life being harder with a child, like the child being unwanted creates a harder life for the child, etc. (no child = less harm, they essentially say)
Makes me sad too.
My mom was a single mom in 1969. I thank God every day she didn't get an abortion (which my father wanted her to get because he didn't want another child -- he had one from his ex-wife. I never had a relationship with him.) I had a great childhood and my mom had a great support system with my grandparents.
I thank God for people like your Mom in this world. And your grandparents.
Amen. And I'll add that one reason I try very, very hard never to give into stereotypes is because of my grandparents. My mom was 24, pregnant out of wedlock. My grandma was Catholic, my grandpa a Southern Baptist (that in and of itself was rare when they married in 1940!) She was terrified to go home and tell them, but she did. My grandpa -- who was very strict from what I've heard -- said, stay, we'll take care of you and the baby. And that was it. We lived with my grandparents for the first three years of my life (my grandpa died when I was 2 and a half) and my grandma watched me while my mom worked. I have never doubted that I was loved. And my father was an asshole. I've forgiven him, but I didn't want a relationship with him when I found him at 18.
They call it women's "healthcare". If women can't kill their babies, they will be harmed.
The homelessness crisis is very lucrative. Government or State funded programs are an excellent way for politicians and their friends to syphon money. The homelessness crisis will never end as long as it's a way to make easy money.
So the Canadians have figured out how to get people to their desired goal - i.e.; assisted suicide. They’ve just done it in a way that exponentially increases both the moral rot and the size and power of the Canadian bureaucracy. Genius.
Spot on. It is impossible not to see the connection between this story and Canada's increasingly aggressive push of its MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) program.
Why is Canada pushing this so much? It’s definitely not overcrowded up there.
Beats me. The country seems to be a bundle of contadictions. My book club just read The Day the World Came to Town about all the Newfoundlanders who took plane passengers into their own homes for going on a week when transatlantic air traffic was grounded there on 9/11. But then we read that at least some Canadians are OK with addicts and the mentally ill being left to die -- indeed, being encouraged and helped to die. It doesn't add up. But the cynical view, I guess, is that however nice or kind Canadians may be as individuals, their government has a vested interest in reducing the number of patients trying to use its overburdened health care system.
In Canada some people have to wait a year or more to have surgery because of their socialized healthcare system. Imagine if they weren't spending millions on giving addicts free drugs and "supervised" places to do drugs.
Yes. Imagine. And this just illustrates that every policy choice, even if well-intentioned (which I question here) has a cost/ opportunity cost associated with it.
maybe this is a question for the chinese -- I believe Trudeau sold them the country awhile ago
Simple. When you enable bad behavior you get more of it and the consequences that follow.
As much as I believe in freedom of choice and being left alone by the government, it's clear that drug legalization carries a very heavy price. And the idea of the government actually supplying recreational drugs or drugs for addicts makes me sick.
Are you sure that this laissez-faire solution is not a deliberate policy to solve a non-solvable problem by giving to the public an outcome that is sure to end in a final solution? "Murder by benign neglect." or let the buyer beware? (Cavate Emptor) You could also salve the politician's psyche by introducing a bill that resolves the issue by blaming the participating buyer/taker as his/her own damn fault. You could also brand them as risk-takers akin to mountain climbers, scuba divers, or sky divers. All professions that have a high death rate.
to your original point, i do not give that that much credit. that sounds liek something I would think of. "Try it your way and if it fails...." You have to assume that these are the preferred results.
I have become deeply ambivalent about this issue. As with the Covid shots, for decades I've endorsed the view "my body, my choice." Don't try prohibit or control their use, and for heaven's sake don't try to mandate them.
That said, the drug war has gone on for so long now that trafficker networks have evolved into small armies of heavily armed thugs. Historically, I've argued that legalizing (not "decriminalizing") hard drugs would enable reputable manufacturers to market products with known levels of quantity and quality per standardized dose.
But in this day and age, I'm afraid that even large pharmaceutical companies would be unable to resist the violence and threats from nihilistic drug gangs, so the only solution (if there is one) is to declare a real war and send in the cruise missiles and Special Operations Forces against drug lords' compounds. No quarter. And no, I would not accept the presence of civilians at the target sites being used as an excuse to shield the MFers.
Aren't pharma companies thugs backed up by the government
This scenario - total war waged against the drug lords and cartels - was the subject of Frederick Forsyth's 2009 thriller The Cobra. The story is riveting because Forsyth brings so much geo-political reality into his account. How The Cobra story turns out in the end is not what you expect.
Thanks, I may add this book to my stack of books to read!
I have to confess to being in the camp of those that thought that decriminalizing with controlled access to drugs would reduce deaths. I have to admit that this is strong evidence that it doesn’t work. I still would like to see something done about the crime associated with addicts getting money and the fortunes earned in selling the drugs.
I always wondered if the easy access to Naloxone would reduce ODs. I can remember back when Congress was holding hearings about mandatory seat belts. (Yes, I’m that old). A PhD testified about the perception of safety and its relation to risk. He posed something that went like this... Take 200 cars and equip 100 with seatbelts and the other 100 with a knife blade on the steering wheel pointing at the driver. At the end of one year of driving which set of 100 cars would have the highest accident and death rate????
I have to say I'm disappointed in this article. There is a major issue that seems to never be discussed in all drug related issues. Having known drug addicts, there is both a physical addiction (to the addictive substance), and also a mental one (a reason someone turns to drugs). Addiction can never be cured or controlled without addressing the mental aspect as it's typically the most important. Many people are prescribed opioids after surgeries and other medical procedures and never become addicts. The dangers of these drugs are not only the substances, but also in the mental state that leads to someone becoming addicted in the first place. What will it take for those in charge to finally recognize this?
Canada is best at reducing their population effortlessly.
Let’s go Justin Castreau!
This proves, when a fire is burning, if you add more fuel you get a bigger fire.
Alex, the study has two problems:
1. BC was giving away the drugs for free, which is nuts. How many people who lived elsewhere came to BC to get free drugs?
2. The OD trend was going up before 2020, so it likely would have continued to go up. You can't necessarily assign cause to the new drug program (much like diseases were going down when vaccines came along, and vaccines claimed credit for the decline). Why were ODs going up, and where would it be today, even without free drugs?
Regarding your #2, they included control provinces. To demonstrate an increase due to the program vs just an overall trend.
Thanks.