I have no sympathy for BC's policies (and to be utterly honest, little for addiction as a disease: there seems to be no fruitful treatment through regarding addiction that way, and more from regarding it as a moral failing to be resisted) and read this news with horror. Then I briefly considered which would be better: my minor children receiving safer supply drugs or dying? Likely the former, but only if it was followed up with my preference for treating addiction as a moral choice, as otherwise one keeps on giving 'safe' drugs until they die.
I spent forty years as a practicing physician, and I never saw any benefit from treating addiction as a disease. Not once, not at all. It isn't a disease; it is a choice, and a poor one. AA gets this right, however you might criticise them. And I'm grateful I have no child who has felt the need to dull their sensibility through drugs.
Glad you were never my doctor. I have seen people get sober through AA which does not treat addiction as a moral failing but a disease - albeit a strange one that only spiritual fulfillment rather than medicine can allay. Yes, there are bad people addicted to drugs and using just loosens the few bonds left on their behavior. And part of the reason they exhibit the poor judgement that results in trying drugs is that they did not have great moral fiber to begin with. Many others are just people. People who addiction creeps up on. They start with drinking in high school or drugs in college or a prescription after surgery. Or after a painful loss in life such as divorce, death, unemployment. Or they use to numb terrible traumas from their past such as being molested or growing up with violence. (no I don’t subscribe to the current craze that everyone is is walking around riddled with deep seated trauma). And modern life with its lack of connection or purpose or even physical vigor is creating ripe conditions for people to try to fill the void. They are not bad. They are sick and nowadays in a society that is often sick as well. People can get sober.
Tasha has responded more eloquently to your comment that addiction is a moral failing than I have any desire to. All I can say is, to anyone who has had family or loved ones suffering from addiction, the overwhelming ignorance of your statement is immediately apparent. It's an ignorance you should be grateful for, something you'll never be grateful enough for, because if you had a true sense of the suffering not just the addict goes through but also their entire family, you wouldn't be talking like this. I never knew the meaning of "wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy" until my family member suffered for years from a drug addiction.
I'm also glad your children didn't ever feel the need to dull their existence with drug abuse - truly, its a wonderful thing you should always be grateful for - and I will forever envy people like you who can view this issue so glibly.
Yes, it's much more than just a physical addiction. Those suffering almost invariably had difficult childhoods or deep-seated mental health issues. It doesn't mean the addiction isn't their responsibility, but it does mean it's something to be treated, broadly speaking, like you would any other ailment.
Or you could just dismiss all addicts as morally inferior. Asshole.
Way to go on the attack, Tasha & Pemulis. Our good doctor said he had no sympathy for BC policies. But you totally and completely ignored that, and went after his co-position on drug use in general. Why is that you were triggered to do that, but not share your thoughts on the article itself, which Mr. Moss is talking about (BC physicians having ability to prescribe fentanyl to minors without informing parents).
So much in the lives of children depends on the ideas their parents hold. Parents who promote rationality and live by rational principles will most often raise rational children. Parents who subscribe to fashionble nonsense will raise lost and helpless children.
Curious what your medical specialty is/was and whether you’ve read much about the benefits of burprenorphone (Subutex, Suboxone, Sublocade) for treatment of OUD. Well I supposed you don’t consider OUD legit so....
To best reframe the “safer supply” policy, the question to ask is, “Would you want your loved ones to be provided with a “safer supply” of the drug they’re addicted to?”
If you love someone, you want them to receive treatment to get off the drug. Feeding their addiction is not compassion. It’s a cop out.
There is no safe way to take fentanyl. One of its many drawbacks is that - unlike heroin - if you overdose on it you get brain damage even if you recover. It is also so cheap that they mix it in with every other street drug. It is a horrible drug.
Here's a swell idea - instead of giving them fentanyl, how about buprenorphine, which is widely available in CA (and the US...even as a generic) and is approved to treat OUD (opioid use disorder). What in the actual F are they thinking up there? Are their brains frozen?
What is the rationale behind this? I'm asking legitimately. Are they hoping that legalization of the drug will curtail its usage? What is the endgame here other than an increase in overdoses and the creation of a populace unable to function because they are perpetually strung out?
Part of the problem is how Fentanyl has come into being on Canadian streets. Most often it is more analogous to the chocolate chip cookie and how even distribution of the drug in pill form has led to OD's.
While i understand the intent of what the BC government is doing, i cannot condone it as they are accepting the drug problem and in fact making it worse.
The government makes it worse as they are now the de facto kingpin of drug distribution. Heck, BC has its own government run Cocaine factory.
The way it works is that street dealers get a prescription (if needed) for their drug of choice and it is filled by the Pharmacy. Then the dealers simply sell it on the streets for whomever will buy it. Safe supply, guaranteed sales for the dealer.
Despicable that the Government is contributing to the opioid crisis in Canada.
I wonder about this sort of thing. Right now it seems to me like there's a philosophy behind this which we could call, for lack of a better term, "Rolling into the problem." That is to say in the case of fentanyl, someone thinks, "People will always be addicted to dangerous drugs. Better to make sure they're safe than to keep them in an underground economy where things would be worse." It's a cynical philosophy wearing a compassionate disguise. The obvious trade off which requires total nullification on the part of advocates for this approach is that you can't successfully make it safer without also making it easier, too (after all, why would you get it from the government when you can get it easier on the streets). And that nearly guarantees that the addiction problem itself will get worse.
I should also say, "Rolling into the problem" rears its ugly head in many other sociopolitical contexts as well. I find its correlated to left wing political persuasions. But I think that's outside the scope of this comments section.
Don't you see a few differences with smoking? I do. 1) The government never offered cleaner tobacco products to compete with any market, let alone the black market. And 2) every effort was to make use of tobacco products more difficult to acquire and use - from banning smoking in more and more places to taxing it into a serious expense for addicts, I've mostly only seen it get harder and harder for smokers to maintain their addiction. It seems to me that what Canada is doing with fentanyl is all about making it easier to be an addict, less risky. Perhaps you feel differently?
Sure with tabaco they never made it illegal. They never locked up millions of people or spent over a trillion dollars futility trying to stop people from smoking. And yet smoking rates still came down drastically.
Meanwhile anyone can get any drug they want at any time, even in prison. I'll say that again, they can't keep drugs out of prison. So if you can't keep drugs out of prison, why the frick are we still pretending that prohibition will work in the broader population.
Pretending that prohibition will work? Will work at what? Getting rid of drugs? You're right. Prohibition doesn't work at stopping drug use. But that's not the game. The game is to contain it. And if you want to argue for legalization, you either have to prove it wins the game over prohibition, or abandon the game altogether. Either way, your silver bullet against arguments like mine is going to be an example of a place in North America where drugs were made legal and drug addiction/drug addiction related homelessness gets better or stays equal when legalized. But everywhere they try this, the problems get much, much worse. Widespread drug use of things like meth and fentanyl cause serious societal blight. It's not a victimless crime. Rolling into the problem works even worse than prohibition.
1. Prohibition is just flat our wrong. Adults should be free to what they want even if it's not good for them as long as they aren't committing an actual crime, with a victim (another person).
2. The costs of prohibition are WAY higher than whatever slightly benefits you might get from lower consumption rates.
The war on drugs has cost over a trillion dollars locked up millions of people for years (talk about destroying lives) and anyone can get any drug they want at any time.
That's pretty much the definition of a failed policy.
Also people doing drugs in public places is an entirely different problem than people enjoying them in the privacy of their own homes.
We have laws against public drunkenness too. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.
Me personally I favor legalization of all drugs (for adults). the purpose being adults should be free to do what they want EVEN if it's bad for them.
Also illegal drugs have problems with quality and purity so a great many more people die because they don't know what they are taking. Note that huge increase in US opioid deaths occurred AFTER the crackdown.
I think for the small segment of the population that has an addiction problem they should be treated medically not criminally (unless they commit an actual crime of course).
But again all this would apply to adults. Minor's shouldn't be getting drugs, especially something like Fentanyl.
Adults have accessibility to serve God by serving others. I don't see many drug addicts serving and working in the community in a Godly way. Most don't even care for themselves. There needs to be arrest and placement in residential treatment facilities. Fail that twice residential treatment/ work camps.
I haven't told my wife yet - but I seriously want to move to Alberta or one of the red states in the US when we retire. I am so sick of this province with its policies of evil empathy.
I have no sympathy for BC's policies (and to be utterly honest, little for addiction as a disease: there seems to be no fruitful treatment through regarding addiction that way, and more from regarding it as a moral failing to be resisted) and read this news with horror. Then I briefly considered which would be better: my minor children receiving safer supply drugs or dying? Likely the former, but only if it was followed up with my preference for treating addiction as a moral choice, as otherwise one keeps on giving 'safe' drugs until they die.
I spent forty years as a practicing physician, and I never saw any benefit from treating addiction as a disease. Not once, not at all. It isn't a disease; it is a choice, and a poor one. AA gets this right, however you might criticise them. And I'm grateful I have no child who has felt the need to dull their sensibility through drugs.
Glad you were never my doctor. I have seen people get sober through AA which does not treat addiction as a moral failing but a disease - albeit a strange one that only spiritual fulfillment rather than medicine can allay. Yes, there are bad people addicted to drugs and using just loosens the few bonds left on their behavior. And part of the reason they exhibit the poor judgement that results in trying drugs is that they did not have great moral fiber to begin with. Many others are just people. People who addiction creeps up on. They start with drinking in high school or drugs in college or a prescription after surgery. Or after a painful loss in life such as divorce, death, unemployment. Or they use to numb terrible traumas from their past such as being molested or growing up with violence. (no I don’t subscribe to the current craze that everyone is is walking around riddled with deep seated trauma). And modern life with its lack of connection or purpose or even physical vigor is creating ripe conditions for people to try to fill the void. They are not bad. They are sick and nowadays in a society that is often sick as well. People can get sober.
Tasha has responded more eloquently to your comment that addiction is a moral failing than I have any desire to. All I can say is, to anyone who has had family or loved ones suffering from addiction, the overwhelming ignorance of your statement is immediately apparent. It's an ignorance you should be grateful for, something you'll never be grateful enough for, because if you had a true sense of the suffering not just the addict goes through but also their entire family, you wouldn't be talking like this. I never knew the meaning of "wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy" until my family member suffered for years from a drug addiction.
I'm also glad your children didn't ever feel the need to dull their existence with drug abuse - truly, its a wonderful thing you should always be grateful for - and I will forever envy people like you who can view this issue so glibly.
Yes, it's much more than just a physical addiction. Those suffering almost invariably had difficult childhoods or deep-seated mental health issues. It doesn't mean the addiction isn't their responsibility, but it does mean it's something to be treated, broadly speaking, like you would any other ailment.
Or you could just dismiss all addicts as morally inferior. Asshole.
Way to go on the attack, Tasha & Pemulis. Our good doctor said he had no sympathy for BC policies. But you totally and completely ignored that, and went after his co-position on drug use in general. Why is that you were triggered to do that, but not share your thoughts on the article itself, which Mr. Moss is talking about (BC physicians having ability to prescribe fentanyl to minors without informing parents).
I doubt you even read the article.
So much in the lives of children depends on the ideas their parents hold. Parents who promote rationality and live by rational principles will most often raise rational children. Parents who subscribe to fashionble nonsense will raise lost and helpless children.
Curious what your medical specialty is/was and whether you’ve read much about the benefits of burprenorphone (Subutex, Suboxone, Sublocade) for treatment of OUD. Well I supposed you don’t consider OUD legit so....
It gets harder and harder to read this kind of stuff and not lose all hope that societies and governments will some day come to their senses.
Giving drugs to minors without informing parents....if it was my kids I would hunt down the person who gave them the drugs.
To best reframe the “safer supply” policy, the question to ask is, “Would you want your loved ones to be provided with a “safer supply” of the drug they’re addicted to?”
If you love someone, you want them to receive treatment to get off the drug. Feeding their addiction is not compassion. It’s a cop out.
There is no safe way to take fentanyl. One of its many drawbacks is that - unlike heroin - if you overdose on it you get brain damage even if you recover. It is also so cheap that they mix it in with every other street drug. It is a horrible drug.
Here's a swell idea - instead of giving them fentanyl, how about buprenorphine, which is widely available in CA (and the US...even as a generic) and is approved to treat OUD (opioid use disorder). What in the actual F are they thinking up there? Are their brains frozen?
What is the rationale behind this? I'm asking legitimately. Are they hoping that legalization of the drug will curtail its usage? What is the endgame here other than an increase in overdoses and the creation of a populace unable to function because they are perpetually strung out?
Part of the problem is how Fentanyl has come into being on Canadian streets. Most often it is more analogous to the chocolate chip cookie and how even distribution of the drug in pill form has led to OD's.
While i understand the intent of what the BC government is doing, i cannot condone it as they are accepting the drug problem and in fact making it worse.
The government makes it worse as they are now the de facto kingpin of drug distribution. Heck, BC has its own government run Cocaine factory.
The way it works is that street dealers get a prescription (if needed) for their drug of choice and it is filled by the Pharmacy. Then the dealers simply sell it on the streets for whomever will buy it. Safe supply, guaranteed sales for the dealer.
Despicable that the Government is contributing to the opioid crisis in Canada.
I wonder about this sort of thing. Right now it seems to me like there's a philosophy behind this which we could call, for lack of a better term, "Rolling into the problem." That is to say in the case of fentanyl, someone thinks, "People will always be addicted to dangerous drugs. Better to make sure they're safe than to keep them in an underground economy where things would be worse." It's a cynical philosophy wearing a compassionate disguise. The obvious trade off which requires total nullification on the part of advocates for this approach is that you can't successfully make it safer without also making it easier, too (after all, why would you get it from the government when you can get it easier on the streets). And that nearly guarantees that the addiction problem itself will get worse.
I should also say, "Rolling into the problem" rears its ugly head in many other sociopolitical contexts as well. I find its correlated to left wing political persuasions. But I think that's outside the scope of this comments section.
Does it really have to make things worse? Smoking rates came down significantly without making it illegal.
Don't you see a few differences with smoking? I do. 1) The government never offered cleaner tobacco products to compete with any market, let alone the black market. And 2) every effort was to make use of tobacco products more difficult to acquire and use - from banning smoking in more and more places to taxing it into a serious expense for addicts, I've mostly only seen it get harder and harder for smokers to maintain their addiction. It seems to me that what Canada is doing with fentanyl is all about making it easier to be an addict, less risky. Perhaps you feel differently?
Sure with tabaco they never made it illegal. They never locked up millions of people or spent over a trillion dollars futility trying to stop people from smoking. And yet smoking rates still came down drastically.
Meanwhile anyone can get any drug they want at any time, even in prison. I'll say that again, they can't keep drugs out of prison. So if you can't keep drugs out of prison, why the frick are we still pretending that prohibition will work in the broader population.
Pretending that prohibition will work? Will work at what? Getting rid of drugs? You're right. Prohibition doesn't work at stopping drug use. But that's not the game. The game is to contain it. And if you want to argue for legalization, you either have to prove it wins the game over prohibition, or abandon the game altogether. Either way, your silver bullet against arguments like mine is going to be an example of a place in North America where drugs were made legal and drug addiction/drug addiction related homelessness gets better or stays equal when legalized. But everywhere they try this, the problems get much, much worse. Widespread drug use of things like meth and fentanyl cause serious societal blight. It's not a victimless crime. Rolling into the problem works even worse than prohibition.
No the justification for ending prohibition is
1. Prohibition is just flat our wrong. Adults should be free to what they want even if it's not good for them as long as they aren't committing an actual crime, with a victim (another person).
2. The costs of prohibition are WAY higher than whatever slightly benefits you might get from lower consumption rates.
The war on drugs has cost over a trillion dollars locked up millions of people for years (talk about destroying lives) and anyone can get any drug they want at any time.
That's pretty much the definition of a failed policy.
Also people doing drugs in public places is an entirely different problem than people enjoying them in the privacy of their own homes.
We have laws against public drunkenness too. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.
Just say NO to the nanny state
Me personally I favor legalization of all drugs (for adults). the purpose being adults should be free to do what they want EVEN if it's bad for them.
Also illegal drugs have problems with quality and purity so a great many more people die because they don't know what they are taking. Note that huge increase in US opioid deaths occurred AFTER the crackdown.
I think for the small segment of the population that has an addiction problem they should be treated medically not criminally (unless they commit an actual crime of course).
But again all this would apply to adults. Minor's shouldn't be getting drugs, especially something like Fentanyl.
Adults have accessibility to serve God by serving others. I don't see many drug addicts serving and working in the community in a Godly way. Most don't even care for themselves. There needs to be arrest and placement in residential treatment facilities. Fail that twice residential treatment/ work camps.
That's a big no for me. We don't need a nanny state government running our lives. Morality should come from God not the government.
Adults should be free to do what they want even if that's make stupid choices.
But it's quite clear you don't value freedom that much
Elsewhere in the news - "Toronto Bans Tobogganing on 45 Hills, Puts Up Warning Signs."
It seems Canadians have a strange understanding of risk.
The Liberal party is destroying Canada.
I haven't told my wife yet - but I seriously want to move to Alberta or one of the red states in the US when we retire. I am so sick of this province with its policies of evil empathy.
If Canadians don't give a fuck about their government killing them with drugs or assisted suicide, why the fuck should I?
Fuck Canada.
Nate the aPretty Good is spot on. There seems to be no end of the perversion thought up by those in charge.
Nice little dystopia you've got there.