Conservatives propose new Drug Legislation

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Taking care of those that are already hooked on drugs is definitely something "different" that is needed. To me, safe-injections sites do not do this. They just promote drug use. Sure it means that they have a "safer" place to shoot up, but I don't see how that minimizes drug use. From your opposition to this thought, I can see that drug use isn't a problem to you....

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but you should really read about the positive impact these sites have. There have been numerous studies on the matter, it's essentially conclusive that harm reduction not only lowers health care costs, enforcement costs and reduces property crime, but improves the quality of life of users by helping those who want it.

There is further evidence that the stigmatization of these needle sites serve to reduce the romantic nature of the drug rather than promoting its use.

[Vulcan]

How I look at needle excanges and safe injection sites is, is that they cut down on the spread of AIDS and HepC. It's not good when some guy takes AIDS home to his wife or girl friend besides the costs of treating infected people.

It also pays us to treat these people so they aren't robbing or stealing or pushing and can contribute to our society.

[Flame On]

As some have pointed out there hasn't exactly been thrilling legislation brought foward by either side. Although saying hash arrests have gone up every year under the libs doesn't necessarily mean they were escilating to war on drugs type standards. I mean just to be facetious more marijuana arrests every year could mean they made a single more arrest than the previous year.
Anyway. I'd like to see some differentiation between hard drugs and soft ones. Categorize pot in with the likes of booze and cigarettes make the rest harsher for dealers and such.
Don't want to start war on drugs like fiascos though that the states are embroiled in.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Clever? I thought I had made it blatantly obvious. I'll have to be more obvious next time...

Yeah, you really got me there. I just can't keep up.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Unfortunately for you, I don't give up that easy. If you don't have a "success barometer", you surely would at least have a goal.... whether the goal is "no drug use", "maintain current drug use levels", "complete drug use by everyone", or whatever.

"Different" isn't always better. If different was always better, we'd all be cheering for different NHL teams every year.

My "goal" is to see less human misery. Lengthy prison sentences and disease/death for drug users increases human misery but does not stop the spread of either drug use or misery.

Different isn't always better, but different than, in your words, "miserable failure" isn't a bad idea. We've tried the lock-up/sweep-under approach for I don't know how long. It is time for something else.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Taking care of those that are already hooked on drugs is definitely something "different" that is needed. To me, safe-injections sites do not do this. They just promote drug use. Sure it means that they have a "safer" place to shoot up, but I don't see how that minimizes drug use. From your opposition to this thought, I can see that drug use isn't a problem to you....

Larf.