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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
"How many deaths will it take for the harm reducers to admit the truth?"
The assumption in Alex's question is that the harm reducers actually concern themselves with the human death toll. Such a concern would likely be based on some sort of moral compass and/or a genuine empathy for other human beings.
However, to assume that these people actually care about human welfare is erroneous: they don't.
And while I know I sound sadly cynical, their actions and propaganda in pushing policies such as "harm reduction" (which Alex and others have clearly proven is anything but harm reduction) in places like BC and Washington State demonstrate thoroughly that they do not cherish human life.
Or perhaps, they don't cherish the demographic that is most likely to engage in such "harm reduction" activities.
At best they are indifferent to the catastrophic results of their policies, and at worst, they are jubilant.
Either way, the organisations (and politicians) that push these policies will not be swayed by the human death toll. They are immune to human suffering. It will take an outside force to push the pendulum the other way. Until then, this senseless, dark, movement will continue to destroy the lives of its victims and their families.
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.
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.
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????
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Push drug use back into the shadows.
Caught using, go to detox for 2 weeks.
Make it miserable.
"How many deaths will it take for the harm reducers to admit the truth?"
The assumption in Alex's question is that the harm reducers actually concern themselves with the human death toll. Such a concern would likely be based on some sort of moral compass and/or a genuine empathy for other human beings.
However, to assume that these people actually care about human welfare is erroneous: they don't.
And while I know I sound sadly cynical, their actions and propaganda in pushing policies such as "harm reduction" (which Alex and others have clearly proven is anything but harm reduction) in places like BC and Washington State demonstrate thoroughly that they do not cherish human life.
Or perhaps, they don't cherish the demographic that is most likely to engage in such "harm reduction" activities.
At best they are indifferent to the catastrophic results of their policies, and at worst, they are jubilant.
Either way, the organisations (and politicians) that push these policies will not be swayed by the human death toll. They are immune to human suffering. It will take an outside force to push the pendulum the other way. Until then, this senseless, dark, movement will continue to destroy the lives of its victims and their families.
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.
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.
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????
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.