Fentanyl crisis in Calgary: Vice documentary

[polak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm a Dutch citizen, lived on Holland, and you're wrong. Its actually written in their laws.

https://www.government.nl/topics/dru...-deal-in-drugs

Now, you've been to Amsterdam. Great. It's a mecca for drug use holidays (which Holland is taking measures to curb), so Amsterdam is far different than every other place in Holland. You cannot carry, sell or distribute any drugs period. They consider small amounts of "soft drugs" (as their described in their laws) permissible. That's it.

Prague is way more lenient than Amsterdam. I'm not going to google it at work but you can get away with carrying small amounts of Cocaine, Mdma, Mushrooms, Weed and I think there was even more.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/...risk-of-death/

When done cold turkey, opiate withdrawal can be deadly. If nothing else you can die of dehydration.

The biggest issue is after reaching a certain point in withdrawal where the addict gives in and does the drug (which happens in most cases). The user has less of an immunity to the drug so it's easier for them to OD on it.

Essentially it sounds next to impossible to quit the drug on your own when severely addicted. Just watch the documentary and it says it all. The one guy has 30k waiting for him at home when he gets clean. Yet he doesn't believe there is any way to get clean without the treatment program that he can't get into for 2-3 months.

No one died from opiate withdrawal. They died from "anaesthesia assisted withdrawal" which is different.

I'm not saying it's easy to quit. I'm saying withdrawal isn't deadly. If we're going to discuss a situation, let's have clear facts and not Internet experts advice

Every day I help 25-50 people on methadone/suboxone to help avoid the devastating effects of their addictions

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm a Dutch citizen, lived on Holland, and you're wrong. Its actually written in their laws.

https://www.government.nl/topics/dru...-deal-in-drugs

Now, you've been to Amsterdam. Great. It's a mecca for drug use holidays (which Holland is taking measures to curb), so Amsterdam is far different than every other place in Holland. You cannot carry, sell or distribute any drugs period. They consider small amounts of "soft drugs" (as their described in their laws) permissible. That's it.

The laws might be in place, but they aren't enforced. Legally you aren't allowed to have weed on you either. But cops don't have the right to search you and really don't care as long as your not doing it in public.

Also I take exception to you calling it a 'drug use holiday'. Amsterdam is a beautiful city and about much more than drugs. I assume you've never been there if this is your mindset about the city.

[peter12]

Oh Bandwagon in Flames. True to the name.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

The cases where you're suggesting drug use is a result of cultural, social, and economic changes. There doesn't always have to be a deeper seated reason for people to start using drugs.

Most cultures tolerate drug use of some kind. Alcohol, khat, mushrooms, whatever. But there is usually some socially-prescribed limitations. Religious ceremonies, festivals, feasts. Even limiting use to weekends.

The problem is when religious and social order collapses, when people are no longer susceptible to social pressures to limit use, and getting wasted becomes routine enough to interfere with normal work and social duties.

[peter12]

See rural white America. See urban black America. See rural indigenous Canada. See East-Side Vancouver.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The laws might be in place, but they aren't enforced. Legally you aren't allowed to have weed on you either. But cops don't have the right to search you and really don't care as long as your not doing it in public.

Also I take exception to you calling it a 'drug use holiday'. Amsterdam is a beautiful city and about much more than drugs. I assume you've never been there if this is your mindset about the city.

Again, Amsterdam is far different than the rest of Holland. I've been there many times, I'm sure far more than you have. It's beautiful, yes. I'm not sure that is relevant to our discussion?

You might take exception to me calling it that, but everyone who does it thinks so too:

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-top...tions-get-high

Guess who's number one?


Amsterdam is not indicative of Holland's drug laws. It's simply not. People in Amsterdam will tell you that and people outside of Amsterdam will tell you that. It's irrelevant if you don't like that fact, it's true.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Also I take exception to you calling it a 'drug use holiday'. Amsterdam is a beautiful city and about much more than drugs. I assume you've never been there if this is your mindset about the city.

It's seedy, dirty, and full of wasted tourists. I've been there three times over 15 years, and each time it was noticeably worse. Most Dutch people I've talked to hate Amsterdam, and feel embarrassed that it's the only part of the Netherlands many visitors ever see.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Fentanyl is really only the tip of the iceberg right now in the synthetic opiates world. Carfentanil, which has already been located in Calgary and various regions of Canada, is even worse. 100 times more potent then fentanyl and 10 000 times more potent then morphine.

I'm tempted to dive into this discussion as this is something I deal with first hand every day but given the responses to Aleks post, I question whether it would be worth my time to get into the debate.

I read 3 more pages trying to find your follow up to this and saw that you actually didn't dive into the discussion. Please do as I am quite interested in your viewpoint, and I'm positive I'm not the only one.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You'll have to provide a source for a statement like that.

So, do I want the government spending money on a war on drugs? Or spending money on developing and distributing their own brands of countless drugs in order to make it safer for addicts? I'm not sure either is desirable.

This isn't even JUST about addicts, though. What about recreational users? Pre-addicts? People who just want to get high? Where is the infrastructure for them, because I'm sure the cartels have no problem just creating the addicts while the government runs around and cleans up the mess afterwards.

In line with Cliff and Corsi, there are naturally destructive/thrill seeking individuals out there. If the government isn't providing the drugs for them to try, someone will. The only solution is for the government to produce it's own high-grade, cost friendly versions of these drugs and make them available to the public for recreational use.

The way I see it: you can push out the cartels, or you can focus on the addicts. I don't know how you can do both.

Provide a source? How about this documentary. These people know that the drug is ruining their life and can't do anything about it. People who were clean for 30 years are still considered recovering addicts. These people obviously WANT to stay away from it, but one little slip and their back at square 1. Not sure how you can seriously try to dispute this as it's common knowledge.

The rest of your post makes even less sense.

Do you want the government spending money on a war on drugs? No. Do I want these addicts to remain criminals who are a burden on our society and resort to robbery to get their fix? No.

Why is the government spending money on distributing their own brands? This drug was invented by pharmaceutical companies and they've gotten rich off it.

You can't dismiss something because it's not a 100% complete solution. That solution doesn't exist. We don't live in Utopia and we never will. It completely addresses the biggest issues while at least touching on others.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

It completely addresses the biggest issues while at least touching on others.

No, it doesn't.

But from someone who denies Amsterdam's existence as a huge drug holiday spot and things a documentary highlighting a handful of users is proof enough of "most addicts", I'm going to have to just assume you and I are living in completely different worlds to begin with.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's seedy, dirty, and full of wasted tourists. I've been there three times over 15 years, and each time it was noticeably worse. Most Dutch people I've talked to hate Amsterdam, and feel embarrassed that it's the only part of the Netherlands many visitors ever see.

It's the same with Freeland Christiania in Copenhagen. Disgusting, dirty, and full of criminals.

[Itse]

Has the discussion on "what's the difference between decriminalization and legalization" been had here?

It doesn't seem like it.

Here's a quote from the Economist.

Decriminalisation does not mean that people can use drugs with impunity. Instead it means that possessing small amounts no longer lands the perpetrator with a criminal record or a jail sentence. Under Jamaica’s new law, people caught with up to two ounces (57 grams) of cannabis can be fined, but not arrested or taken to court. Drug users in Portugal can be forced to attend classes aimed at getting them back on the straight and narrow. People found with cannabis in Italy may have their driving licences confiscated. By contrast, legalisation, of the sort enacted in Uruguay and a handful of US states, means that consumers face no penalty at all (unless, for instance, they smoke in public places). More importantly, it means that the supply side of the business—cultivation, transportation and retailing—is also legal. In Jamaica, selling cannabis will remain a crime; in Alaska it will soon be a legitimate, taxable occupation.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And Portugal punishes anyone found with drugs

Technically true, but really just obfuscation. Drug possession (for personal use) is not a crime in Portugal since 2001. More like a misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Assuming that the government (or government authorized businesses) will add additional supply, it will add more legitimate and trusted placed to buy it. Unfortunately, this does not take away the local dealer.

And that's why every town is still filled with speakeasys, moonshiners and bootleggers. No wait. In practice, local small time dealers can't compete with professional industrial production in price, quality or supply, even if they don't pay taxes. Not longterm anyway, and not in any significant scale.

Plus the hardcore criminal types are in the drug business to make big bucks fast. They're not the kind of people who are interested in competing with international corporations in price and marketing.

(BTW, international corporations, which would certainly get in on the drug business once it's commonly accepted enough, are fantastic and relentless at crushing the local competition.)

Legalizing pot and other 'harmless' drugs makes sense, but will unfortunately have the result of increasing their use.

Again, technically possibly true. However the issue with drugs is not that people use them. The issue is reducing the harm caused by that use.

Decriminalization has been proven to reduce harms, such as violence, OD's and spread of HIV through unclean needles.

Sure the crime rate will go down.. that's a no-brainer. Is that the problem that we're trying to solve here?

For one large part, absolutely.

One big reason why the alcohol prohibition ended was because it overcrowded courts and prisons, and mostly it filled them with harmless average joes, while the true gangsters roamed free. Sound familiar?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's seedy, dirty, and full of wasted tourists. I've been there three times over 15 years, and each time it was noticeably worse. Most Dutch people I've talked to hate Amsterdam, and feel embarrassed that it's the only part of the Netherlands many visitors ever see.

I wouldn't expect a bitter old man to find any enjoyment there.

Every city in Europe is dirty. Next to Munich, Amsterdam was the cleanest city I've visited.

http://www.netherlands-tourism.com/1...-of-amsterdam/

There is some amazing architecture throughout the city. Markets everywhere and tulips around every corner.

And the only place I saw noticeably wasted tourists was red light district. Maybe you should spend less time there next time and actually explore the city.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, it doesn't.

But from someone who denies Amsterdam's existence as a huge drug holiday spot and things a documentary highlighting a handful of users is proof enough of "most addicts", I'm going to have to just assume you and I are living in completely different worlds to begin with.

I didn't deny that, just spoke to the fact there's more going on in the city. I didn't go to Amsterdam for a 'drug holiday' and took offense to that statement.


Nice deflection post though.

You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when Peter is agreeing with you.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I didn't deny that, just spoke to the fact there's more going on in the city. I didn't go to Amsterdam for a 'drug holiday' and took offense to that statement.


Nice deflection post though.

You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when Peter is agreeing with you.

Did you go to Amsterdam with the intent of taking drugs? Then, it was a drug holiday. Sorry, dude.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I didn't deny that, just spoke to the fact there's more going on in the city. I didn't go to Amsterdam for a 'drug holiday' and took offense to that statement. Nice deflection post though. You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when Peter is agreeing with you.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Again, Amsterdam is far different than the rest of Holland. I've been there many times, I'm sure far more than you have. It's beautiful, yes. I'm not sure that is relevant to our discussion?

You might take exception to me calling it that, but everyone who does it thinks so too:

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-top...tions-get-high

Guess who's number one?


Amsterdam is not indicative of Holland's drug laws. It's simply not. People in Amsterdam will tell you that and people outside of Amsterdam will tell you that. It's irrelevant if you don't like that fact, it's true.

It's relevant when you say I went to Amsterdam for a 'drug use holiday'. When instead I went there because it's a beautiful city.

How is this hard to comprehend?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Itse

Has the discussion on "what's the difference between decriminalization and legalization" been had here?

It doesn't seem like it.

Here's a quote from the Economist.





Technically true, but really just obfuscation. Drug possession (for personal use) is not a crime in Portugal since 2001. More like a misdemeanor.

Again, technically possibly true. However the issue with drugs is not that people use them. The issue is reducing the harm caused by that use.

Decriminalization has been proven to reduce harms, such as violence, OD's and spread of HIV through unclean needles.

It's not obfuscation. I was responding to Thor suggesting you could just buy it and there were no repercussions. It's still not legal.

While technically not a criminal offence, the point is there's still a punishment for possession

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

It's relevant when you say I went to Amsterdam for a 'drug use holiday'. When instead I went there because it's a beautiful city.

How is this hard to comprehend?

Where did I say that????????