getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Did you read the whole article or just the headline?

Whole article, he died of a suspected fentanyl overdose.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Reading just the headline is one kind of stupid but it’s always sad to see someone make a dumb conclusion based on that limited information, that would have been cleared up had he just read past the headline on any of the number of articles about him lol.

Jerry Martin was an activist who provided tested, safe supply drugs, and wanted to get arrested for it so he could take the legal safe supply issue to court. Nobody died from the program he co-founded, and he was otherwise meticulous about testing his drugs. Why he didn’t test the ones he took himself? Who actually knows. But it doesn’t sound like a purposeful OD was off the table.

Celebrating his death is moronic.

Don't forget the one important line though:

"Martin, 51, died Friday following a suspected fentanyl overdose". You missed that one, boy. If you want to simp over a guy dealing hard drugs, presumably including fentanyl, be my guest. God people with your mindset are the biggest losers around.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Don't forget the one important line though:

"Martin, 51, died Friday following a suspected fentanyl overdose". You missed that one, boy. If you want to simp over a guy dealing hard drugs, presumably including fentanyl, be my guest. God people with your mindset are the biggest losers around.

Can you not be like this?

Also from the article:

“Thomas said he was meticulous about testing his drugs. She wonders if Martin made an impulsive decision to take drugs that weren't tested the day he overdosed, and is haunted by the fact she'll never definitively know what happened.”

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Can you not be like this?

Also from the article:

“Thomas said he was meticulous about testing his drugs. She wonders if Martin made an impulsive decision to take drugs that weren't tested the day he overdosed, and is haunted by the fact she'll never definitively know what happened.”

He was clearly not as meticulous as he / his partner thought and either he accidentally or intentionally died of fentanyl. Now, do you want someone who can't or won't test their own supply masquerading around as some junkie Robin Hood, fighting the good fight for their junkie brethren. What's sad is how many people are being duped into believing this guy being a good guy.

His shop didn't even last a day, so we actually have no clue if his drugs were clean (which is still a ####ty thing to do, dealing hard drugs). He probably would have killed a few people along with himself had it stayed open.

And yes, I will be like that when someone calls my views moronic because I'm not lamenting the death of a drug dealer. Pepsifree is an idiot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Can you not be like this?

Also from the article:

“Thomas said he was meticulous about testing his drugs. She wonders if Martin made an impulsive decision to take drugs that weren't tested the day he overdosed, and is haunted by the fact she'll never definitively know what happened.”

It’s definitely embarrassing watching people lash out instead of just saying “I made a bad conclusion.”

I think there’s a lot of grey area between celebrating Martin’s death and what some nobody calls “simping” for him. He wanted to make a positive difference, he was going about it the way he knew how and trying to make things safer for people who are largely being left to die. His own addiction got the best of him. These are just facts that can be acknowledged without worrying about “simping” for anyone. If people need to make things up to excuse themselves for celebrating someone else’s death, what’s the point in that?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s definitely embarrassing watching people lash out instead of just saying “I made a bad conclusion.”

I think there’s a lot of grey area between celebrating Martin’s death and what some nobody calls “simping” for him. He wanted to make a positive difference (he wanted to sell crack, heroin and meth, what an outstanding community member), he was going about it the way he knew how (spending your life as a junkie and marketing safe drugs while ODing on your own supply, yeah this guy deserves what he got) and trying to make things safer for people who are largely being left to die (These people ostracized themselves with their original choice to do drugs followed up by the addiction, that is their problem to own and no one elses. This junkie is further enabling that and his death will hopefully prevent more people from going down the same road). His own addiction (and stupidity for not properly testing his drugs! His whole schtick was safe drugs and he couldnt even guarantee that for himself lol) got the best of him. These are just facts that can be acknowledged without worrying about “simping” for anyone. If people need to make things up to excuse themselves for celebrating someone else’s death, what’s the point in that?

None of what you said are facts, they are opinions, but you're simping a little to hard to understand that your opinion isn't gospel.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

This was a guy dealing crack, meth, heroin and more from a presumably unsafe supply (or else he wouldn't be dead) that is now off the streets. Anyone selling hard drugs like this is not a good person.

He didn't seriously think that his hard drug store would be allowed to operate. As you say, it was closed in a day. He was making a statement about the lack of clean supply out there.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

None of what you said are facts, they are opinions, but you're simping a little to hard to understand that your opinion isn't gospel.

However you need to frame things to make yourself feel better for celebrating his death is understandable, since it’s not an easy thing sit with. Do what you have to do.

But do you really think anyone values you enough to care if you run around calling them losers or simps?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

However you need to frame things to make yourself feel better for celebrating his death is understandable, since it’s not an easy thing sit with. Do what you have to do.

But do you really think anyone values you enough to care if you run around calling them losers or simps?

Do I really care about you questioning me on it? Nope. But I'm still gonna do it when you post dumb crap, boy.

And celebrating the death of a drug dealer is a pretty easy hill to OD on. Never thought I'd see the day where people are sad to see a drug dealer die. What a half baked point of view.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Do I really care about you questioning me on it? Nope. But I'm still gonna do it when you post dumb crap, boy.

And celebrating the death of a drug dealer is a pretty easy hill to OD on. Never thought I'd see the day where people are sad to see a drug dealer die. What a half baked point of view.

You’re still going to do what? Call me “boy” or a loser or a simp? Who cares?

Every overdose is sad, whether you’re sad for the person or sad at the state of things. Some people get what’s coming to them, and you can hate his methods and argue he’s an example of that. But it should be pretty telling on the state of things in Vancouver when his death, even as someone dealing drugs (how much dealing he actually did, we don’t know), can be considered sad. He was trying to move the needle toward safe supply which might not solve the problem, but it would at least save lives, and it’s not hard to see how much value that would hold to people in the midst of it, watching their friends die regularly.

He didn’t accomplish his goal, and in the end he was a victim of the same thing he was trying to stop others from being a victim to. It is what it is.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re still going to do what? Call me “boy” or a loser or a simp? Who cares?

Every overdose is sad, whether you’re sad for the person or sad at the state of things. Some people get what’s coming to them, and you can hate his methods and argue he’s an example of that. But it should be pretty telling on the state of things in Vancouver when his death, even as someone dealing drugs (how much dealing he actually did, we don’t know), can be considered sad. He was trying to move the needle toward safe supply which might not solve the problem, but it would at least save lives, and it’s not hard to see how much value that would hold to people in the midst of it, watching their friends die regularly.

He didn’t accomplish his goal, and in the end he was a victim of the same thing he was trying to stop others from being a victim to. It is what it is.

Lol the guy selling drugs and advocating for hard drugs to be "safely" sold by regular Joe's is a victim. You must have been buying off of him, lol. This guy is a victim of ####ing around and finding out and nothing more. How many other people did this hero get addicted to drugs along the way? I'm sure there's multiples.

He died doing what he loved, drugs. At least he's a card carrying member of a political party.

[Locke]

A Polar Bear would have sorted this all out well before it got to this point.

Just sayin'.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Lol the guy selling drugs and advocating for hard drugs to be "safely" sold by regular Joe's is a victim. You must have been buying off of him, lol. This guy is a victim of ####ing around and finding out and nothing more. How many other people did this hero get addicted to drugs along the way? I'm sure there's multiples.

He died doing what he loved, drugs. At least he's a card carrying member of a political party.

Whatever makes you feel better, but you don’t need to try so hard.

[Igottago]

I don't know much about the individual that defied the authorities and ended up OD'ing, but it goes to show that simply attempting to "clean" the supply of drugs, it isn't the best idea, its still leaving addicts (even one apparently spearheading the strategy) at risk. You are never going to make a dent in the problem by giving people easy access to drugs, never, even if you think those drugs are clean, the results are in, come check out Vancouver if you want to see how well the policy has worked. I think the problem here in BC is that there's entire non profit organizations, government agencies, medical departments and careers and reputations built around ineffective strategies. It will take a seismic shift in approach to change things, which probably means a new government willing to dismantle the old ideas. And that is very unlikely to happen in this province.

You have to reduce the supply of dangerous drugs, not just keep them clean and keep distributing it out into the population. I tend to agree with the people that have been saying "safe supply" is a misnomer. There is no safe supply. Its a short sighted strategy, which just kicks the can down the road. For every overdose it prevents, how many more addicts are created by easy access to supply or kept addicted longer than they need to be?

[Matata]

This Martin guys story arc seems like a great allegory for the detached idealism and doomed nature of "safe supply" within the modern paradigm.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

A Polar Bear would have sorted this all out well before it got to this point.

Just sayin'.

They could even make a movie about it.

Fentanyl Bear.

[2Stonedbirds]

I'm waiting for Methamcentipede.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

They could even make a movie about it.

Fentanyl Bear.

Make some money and balance the Budget!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Matata

This Martin guys story arc seems like a great allegory for the detached idealism and doomed nature of "safe supply" within the modern paradigm.

It's almost like having amateurs do this instead of professionals might be part of the issue. I mean, I'm sure he had the best lab equipment available from Aliexpress to do the job, and his chemistry degree was from East Hastings was recent, but ya, let's condemn the whole idea behind it due to his failure.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't know much about the individual that defied the authorities and ended up OD'ing, but it goes to show that simply attempting to "clean" the supply of drugs, it isn't the best idea, its still leaving addicts (even one apparently spearheading the strategy) at risk. You are never going to make a dent in the problem by giving people easy access to drugs, never, even if you think those drugs are clean, the results are in, come check out Vancouver if you want to see how well the policy has worked. I think the problem here in BC is that there's entire non profit organizations, government agencies, medical departments and careers and reputations built around ineffective strategies. It will take a seismic shift in approach to change things, which probably means a new government willing to dismantle the old ideas. And that is very unlikely to happen in this province.

You have to reduce the supply of dangerous drugs, not just keep them clean and keep distributing it out into the population. I tend to agree with the people that have been saying "safe supply" is a misnomer. There is no safe supply. Its a short sighted strategy, which just kicks the can down the road. For every overdose it prevents, how many more addicts are created by easy access to supply or kept addicted longer than they need to be?

I don’t even know how much it says about anything, other than addicts flaunting the laws in public in an attempt to force the government to do something is right about where we are.

Addicts, even the ones trying to help others, can barely stay alive. They can’t even help themselves, but there are those of them who understand the problem and are sick enough of it to try to solve it themselves.

You ask how many new ones are created or how many are kept addicted long than they need to be, but against what alternative? Based on the prevalence of the issue, do you really think these drugs are hard to get and easier to get off without safe supply, as it stands currently?

If you really wanted to, you could go get any street drug you wanted to do, right now. And there would be no assurance that it isn’t laced with fentanyl, and zero effort from those you bought it from to curb your addiction in any way (the opposite, actually).

I’m not saying safe supply is THE answer or is able to solve the problem by itself. But I think suggesting that the current situation without safe supply is somehow safer or better overall is just wrong.