Three perspectives on drugs: 1) people have the right to control what they do with their own bodies, 2) all drugs require regulations, prohibition does not prohibit drugs, it merely prohibits regulation, 3) addiction is created by psychological dependencies which are far more driven by environmental factors and mental health than the actual substance. The Misuse of Drugs Act has been a complete failure, and has actually increased drug harm and drug misuse, if the purpose of the law was to stop drug misuse, then claiming that simply using a drug is automatically misuse is fundamentally incoherent, the law should actually create mechanisms to prevent detrimental behaviour, not necessary to prevent drug use itself. That is the only option because the current system has failed.
Give people HOPE clear pathways to change their lives, therapy, training, jobs with progression, home ownership potential, connection and purpose in commuinities..... You do not beat addiction by swapping your dodgey drug dealer for govt regulated amphetamines. Thats methodone 2.0 and people abused that and theyll abuse this. Invest in what makes people use..not in the control of substances to "limit harm" - Empower people to empower themselves!!!!!!
I think you're thinking of schemes which just give out drug (be it methodone or other) but don't have any social services support built round the treatment. The schemes which have this all round treatment system are highly successful. The issue is that they are quite expensive, so often the 'cheap' - just handing out the drug - scheme is done. Though it must be said this still causes less harm as it breaks the organised crime connection that addicts are forced to use without govt provide drugs, plus the drugs itself is much 'cleaner' and doesn't have any impurities black market drugs have which often are the cause of the most negative side effects (aside from the addiction of core substance).
@@user-uy6uc5ey5q addicts need consequences from their addiction or they will not choose to change , they need to hit rock bottom (i am an ex addict and have attended different rehab services). Reducing harm makes sense with needle exchange programmes (from a public health perspective) and subscribed substances with participation in extensive rehab/ social services is also an option. Simply reducing harm in otherways is not doing people any favors in the long run - without the consequences of an addict lifestyle, there is limited reason to seek help to change. You protect people by creating commuinity and educating people of skills to deal with their problems and by making sure there are choices / pathways people can choose for themselves to build a better life. You don't blunt the sharp edges of the world...
As soon as you make Drugs a War you have separation and no communication but what it does do is give the police a purpose outside of writing traffic tickets
Listening to Helen Clark would make the gvt part of the problem in drug abuse. I would ask anyone who has lost a family member to drug addiction or who is having family disfunction because of drug taking, or anyone opposed to the consumption of meth,to give this " sales person" the swerve.
I couldn't disagree more, the proposal for safe supply is not that the government would be selling it but rather that they would be offering an alternative to people they know are users. It takes users away from needing to buy off of gangs which is health risk in its own right and it undermines gangs primary source of income. It also can be done in tandem with providing access to resources and support which would helo wean you off, this helps stopping losing someone to these drugs. This works really well with things like needle exchanges where intravenouse drug users can obtain clean needles and talk to a nurse which has helped to decrease HIV and Hepatitus transferring through dirty needles which was no small issue. Safe supply helps protect people who are vulnerable, stops them from OD'ing, brings them back from the edge and lets us spend our time and resources providing more effective support and pathways out of addiction. If you've lost a family member to meth related gang violence, or health consequences of dangerous meth use, safe supply is a big step in the right direction to preventing that from happening again.
Said the person who I doubt has either read either the report, not this book. Ignorance of facts due to political bias is not good ground for public policy or helping people.
Gotta get tough on Gangs - If they cannot prove source of funds for Harleys take them off them and do long time behind bars which will show others that its not worth it. You dont see this in strick countries like Saudi or Dubai, Singapore -
theres stigma around it for bloody good reason ,de criminalising will be a fast track to whats happening in canada and the states ,we need to crush this horrible drug from our society ,
Stigma doesn't mean anything to an addict when theyre "lost" in their addiction, its not a hurdle to recovery. Reducing stigma around P would not bring any benefits to users or commuinities riddled with it. The only stigma that needs to be met is providing appropriate healthcare and treatment in response to addiction. Beyond this, we must create commuinities and pathways that people can choose over addiction - its bloody hard to get into society if youre on the outside.
We know that everyone has their ‘drug’ of choice, simply because anyone can be an addict, whether it be food, sex, drugs, or ‘rock and roll’; it’s just a part of human nature and suppression of it usually results in it becoming a subculture; gangs, companies, associations, corporate entities, whether legitimate, or otherwise will always find ways to exploit an opportunity to supply such things, regardless of the consequences to society at large, because most of us are addicted to a modern ‘money’ economy of consumerism; pure ‘supply and demand’ in the rawest market driven sense; after all “it’s easier to lead a horse to water, than it is to make it drink”, adage; Benedict makes a good point that harm reduction is a good policy to pursue at all levels of society, whether it be through education (as opposed to indoctrination, or propaganda) social responsibility in community health and safety (as opposed to pure economic imperatives) care, concern and respect for peoples choices (as opposed fear, force, and punitive schemes) among other things; we’re sure there are many other areas where we as communities and as a nation could improve the quality of life, living and raising family here in this land, by making sure we have our priorities in place (housing, food, living within our means) rather than focusing on and driven by existential matters; this country is a paradise compared to many modern nation states; and it might just need a revolution to make it just more so;
An objective view on meth. Can we help users? Why is it being used? Are prisons an indoctrination into the gang-organised drug industry? Can we work with countries that mass produce meth for export?
While I agree with everything else you write here the problem with the last matter you raise is the 2 named countries - Myanmar and Mexico are both very corrupt countries including their governments which when combined with the fact the black market drug manufacturing occurs in areas largely outside their governments' control mean there isn't anything concrete to work with vis helping them. The US has given vast resources to the Mexican federal government, vastly in excess of anything NZ could provide and it made pretty much zero impact on Mexico being one of primary sources for the US and now world supply of illegal drugs. Tackling the demand side and reducing the amount of addicts is the only proven way to address this problem.
There is no market for meth if there are no users, you are correct. Playing with fire to even entertain the possibility of there being a " safe and effective" way to introduce a type of legal use of meth. I have seen as many others have what it can do to an individual who prior to using had a very promising future ahead of them. Those are the facts ....I don't need to read a book about it.
As a student in social work, thank you for your comment. Myanmar is in our backyard, yet we don't hear much about it. It is a serious civil war with a huge amount of human rights abuse and a massive refugee crisis. ?@@user-uy6uc5ey5q
Three perspectives on drugs: 1) people have the right to control what they do with their own bodies, 2) all drugs require regulations, prohibition does not prohibit drugs, it merely prohibits regulation, 3) addiction is created by psychological dependencies which are far more driven by environmental factors and mental health than the actual substance. The Misuse of Drugs Act has been a complete failure, and has actually increased drug harm and drug misuse, if the purpose of the law was to stop drug misuse, then claiming that simply using a drug is automatically misuse is fundamentally incoherent, the law should actually create mechanisms to prevent detrimental behaviour, not necessary to prevent drug use itself. That is the only option because the current system has failed.
Give people HOPE clear pathways to change their lives, therapy, training, jobs with progression, home ownership potential, connection and purpose in commuinities..... You do not beat addiction by swapping your dodgey drug dealer for govt regulated amphetamines. Thats methodone 2.0 and people abused that and theyll abuse this. Invest in what makes people use..not in the control of substances to "limit harm" - Empower people to empower themselves!!!!!!
I think you're thinking of schemes which just give out drug (be it methodone or other) but don't have any social services support built round the treatment. The schemes which have this all round treatment system are highly successful. The issue is that they are quite expensive, so often the 'cheap' - just handing out the drug - scheme is done.
Though it must be said this still causes less harm as it breaks the organised crime connection that addicts are forced to use without govt provide drugs, plus the drugs itself is much 'cleaner' and doesn't have any impurities black market drugs have which often are the cause of the most negative side effects (aside from the addiction of core substance).
@@user-uy6uc5ey5q addicts need consequences from their addiction or they will not choose to change , they need to hit rock bottom (i am an ex addict and have attended different rehab services). Reducing harm makes sense with needle exchange programmes (from a public health perspective) and subscribed substances with participation in extensive rehab/ social services is also an option. Simply reducing harm in otherways is not doing people any favors in the long run - without the consequences of an addict lifestyle, there is limited reason to seek help to change.
You protect people by creating commuinity and educating people of skills to deal with their problems and by making sure there are choices / pathways people can choose for themselves to build a better life. You don't blunt the sharp edges of the world...
What you said in general, sounds like a good road map for society. (It might be called social democracy?) 🙂
Safe supply is NOT a good idea for meth in particular.
Good listening
K rd was full meth use. Especially in the dance scene. DJ's loved the glass bbq. .... Jacinda Adern '...
Bar tenders in the Hamilton bar scene, and Auckland hospitality industry all know Clark Gayford was frequently on the pipe.
Clark loves the coco cola😊
Ardern would know...
Alcohol needs to be banned too.
As soon as you make Drugs a War you have separation and no communication but what it does do is give the police a purpose outside of writing traffic tickets
Owners of 33 pacific avenue are being very abusive to me everyday, where is my help?
I better read the book 🙂
Listening to Helen Clark would make the gvt part of the problem in drug abuse. I would ask anyone who has lost a family member to drug addiction or who is having family disfunction because of drug taking, or anyone opposed to the consumption of meth,to give this " sales person" the swerve.
I couldn't disagree more, the proposal for safe supply is not that the government would be selling it but rather that they would be offering an alternative to people they know are users. It takes users away from needing to buy off of gangs which is health risk in its own right and it undermines gangs primary source of income. It also can be done in tandem with providing access to resources and support which would helo wean you off, this helps stopping losing someone to these drugs. This works really well with things like needle exchanges where intravenouse drug users can obtain clean needles and talk to a nurse which has helped to decrease HIV and Hepatitus transferring through dirty needles which was no small issue. Safe supply helps protect people who are vulnerable, stops them from OD'ing, brings them back from the edge and lets us spend our time and resources providing more effective support and pathways out of addiction.
If you've lost a family member to meth related gang violence, or health consequences of dangerous meth use, safe supply is a big step in the right direction to preventing that from happening again.
Said the person who I doubt has either read either the report, not this book.
Ignorance of facts due to political bias is not good ground for public policy or helping people.
@@user-uy6uc5ey5qwell said
MANY THANKS FOR THIS TOPIC JACK
YOO THIS GUY CAME TO MY SCHOOL LAST WEEK
Gotta get tough on Gangs - If they cannot prove source of funds for Harleys take them off them and do long time behind bars which will show others that its not worth it. You dont see this in strick countries like Saudi or Dubai, Singapore -
theres stigma around it for bloody good reason ,de criminalising will be a fast track to whats happening in canada and the states ,we need to
crush this horrible drug from our society ,
ruclips.net/video/Qwcp2mcOH0Y/видео.html
Stigma doesn't mean anything to an addict when theyre "lost" in their addiction, its not a hurdle to recovery. Reducing stigma around P would not bring any benefits to users or commuinities riddled with it. The only stigma that needs to be met is providing appropriate healthcare and treatment in response to addiction. Beyond this, we must create commuinities and pathways that people can choose over addiction - its bloody hard to get into society if youre on the outside.
Breaking Bad.!!!
We know that everyone has their ‘drug’ of choice, simply because anyone can be an addict, whether it be food, sex, drugs, or ‘rock and roll’; it’s just a part of human nature and suppression of it usually results in it becoming a subculture;
gangs, companies, associations, corporate entities, whether legitimate, or otherwise will always find ways to exploit an opportunity to supply such things, regardless of the consequences to society at large, because most of us are addicted to a modern ‘money’ economy of consumerism; pure ‘supply and demand’ in the rawest market driven sense; after all “it’s easier to lead a horse to water, than it is to make it drink”, adage;
Benedict makes a good point that harm reduction is a good policy to pursue at all levels of society, whether it be through education (as opposed to indoctrination, or propaganda) social responsibility in community health and safety (as opposed to pure economic imperatives) care, concern and respect for peoples choices (as opposed fear, force, and punitive schemes) among other things;
we’re sure there are many other areas where we as communities and as a nation could improve the quality of life, living and raising family here in this land, by making sure we have our priorities in place (housing, food, living within our means) rather than focusing on and driven by existential matters; this country is a paradise compared to many modern nation states; and it might just need a revolution to make it just more so;
An objective view on meth. Can we help users? Why is it being used? Are prisons an indoctrination into the gang-organised drug industry? Can we work with countries that mass produce meth for export?
While I agree with everything else you write here the problem with the last matter you raise is the 2 named countries - Myanmar and Mexico are both very corrupt countries including their governments which when combined with the fact the black market drug manufacturing occurs in areas largely outside their governments' control mean there isn't anything concrete to work with vis helping them.
The US has given vast resources to the Mexican federal government, vastly in excess of anything NZ could provide and it made pretty much zero impact on Mexico being one of primary sources for the US and now world supply of illegal drugs.
Tackling the demand side and reducing the amount of addicts is the only proven way to address this problem.
There is no market for meth if there are no users, you are correct. Playing with fire to even entertain the possibility of there being a " safe and effective" way to introduce a type of legal use of meth. I have seen as many others have what it can do to an individual who prior to using had a very promising future ahead of them. Those are the facts ....I don't need to read a book about it.
As a student in social work, thank you for your comment. Myanmar is in our backyard, yet we don't hear much about it. It is a serious civil war with a huge amount of human rights abuse and a massive refugee crisis. ?@@user-uy6uc5ey5q
You can see these ‘druggies ‘ in the supermarkets , they’ve got that sickly ‘look’
Do you really know if they are drugged up