Ok what about this topic: "Shooting Gallery"

[SexyPlexi]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367579/wid/11915773?gt1=10514

Did you guys say a couple weeks ago that people can buy new syringes from the pharmacy with out a prescription?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MountainPharmD]

I am still in favor of natural selection....the stupid will weed themselves out thus improving the gene pool for us all. I don't see why we need to help them.

 

[twester]

It's worth a try, at least. If such an operation has clearly measurable goals and achieves them without harming the surrounding community, why not? Societal disapproval has done nothing to solve the addiction problem, maybe it's time to try something else.

 

[npage148]

It's a good idea and I'm sure it will cut down the risk of IV drug user's diseases. Plus, it may also be a nice first step to helping them to better therapy by getting them in a safe place were a counselor may be present to talk to them.

And I'm all for selling needles at work and I do it and I don't pester them about it.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Why the hell not. Hell, let's sell them the heroin, too. The stuff they buy may not be pure product.

 

[MountainPharmD]

You know sometimes you make sense.....They could employ nurses and pharmacist. We could ensure only approved pure heroin was dispensed....After all we don't want these junkies hurting themselves...

 

[Old Timer]

I am still in favor of natural selection....the stupid will weed themselves out thus improving the gene pool for us all. I don't see why we need to help them.

The problem with your solution is most of the patrons have already reproduced, after all they're starting at 11 years old now, so they have already passed on their mutant genes.

 

[JerryPharmD]

I really can't believe that a place like that would exist. I disagree 100%. What's next? How about a 'murder room?' We'll kindly restrain your victim while you kill them, then dispose of the remains afterward.

 

[SexyPlexi]

I really can't believe that a place like that would exist. I disagree 100%. What's next? How about a 'murder room?' We'll kindly restrain your victim while you kill them, then dispose of the remains afterward.

Ha ha! Well said.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Just to add in some more info on this that a lot of us might not know, a lot of these people are addicts from the 70s and 80s when cocaine was thought as harmless, and ruined the lifes of many people. One of my friends work in the NY psychiatric insitute doing a study on cocaine users. A lot of them are 40 year old addicts who just cant get off the drug. To me, that room is no different than the NY psychiatric insitute letting them take the drug while studying them.

PS. as professionals, we cant judge them. . that is not our position to.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ha ha! Well said.

Actually, that's a really poor comparison....it has to do with something affecting just you and you affecting another person....

 

[PharmDstudent]

Actually, that's a really poor comparison....it has to do with something affecting just you and you affecting another person....

Agreed. It actually has less effect on other people if they use at a designated location. At least they aren't shooting up in a public bathroom.

 

[bananaface]

Agreed. It actually has less effect on other people if they use at a designated location. At least they aren't shooting up in a public bathroom.

Tell that to the NIMBY crowd.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Tell that to the NIMBY crowd.

Yeah...no one would want that kind of traffic near their neighborhoods. It may be different if they already have that population. Otherwise, the implementation of such a program would be difficult. It's like all of the other unsightly or unpopular businesses, such as: trash dumps, prisons, methadone clinics, abortion clinics, graveyards, nuclear and chemical power plants, etc.

 

[JerryPharmD]

PS. as professionals, we cant judge them. . that is not our position to.

Sure we can, what they are doing is illegal. In Arizona mere posession of a scheduled drug without a prescription (or a class I) is a felony. They are felons, plain and simple.

I do not condone illegal drug use. No action should be taken to ease the use of illegal drugs. Have the city build that room. I say put a cop outside the door and arrest everyone who goes in there. A cop will be put there eventually to prevent addicts from stealing the dope off other addicts.

As for it being a victimless crime, what about the people on drugs committing other crimes? They do this when they're either on the drug or in the attempt to obtain it. Assaults, robberies, kidnapping & murder just to name a few

Nothing is going to stop people from being on drugs, but why should we help them out?

 

[sdn1977]

Just to add in some more info on this that a lot of us might not know, a lot of these people are addicts from the 70s and 80s when cocaine was thought as harmless, and ruined the lifes of many people. One of my friends work in the NY psychiatric insitute doing a study on cocaine users. A lot of them are 40 year old addicts who just cant get off the drug. To me, that room is no different than the NY psychiatric insitute letting them take the drug while studying them.

PS. as professionals, we cant judge them. . that is not our position to.

Don't know who pulled the wool over your eyes. Cocaine was not thought harmless in the 70's & 80's - I was right there! Perhaps you were thinking of the 1870's & 1880's - when CocaCola was first out......

Coke has always been an issue.

Nah - I don't think this ideas will fly. Like the bathouses - good idea, bad implementation.

 

[eeyore spice]

As for it being a victimless crime, what about the people on drugs committing other crimes? They do this when they're either on the drug or in the attempt to obtain it. Assaults, robberies, kidnapping & murder just to name a few

Nothing is going to stop people from being on drugs, but why should we help them out?

You kind of answered your own question.

Why do people commit drug-related crimes? Because either

1. They need the money for an exorbitantly marked-up drug

2. They're illegal sellers protecting their turf the only way they can--illegally.

3. Or they were sold crap and want revenge. What's the seller going to do, tell the police the details?

As for general violence resulting from being under the influence, I have one word for you: ethanol.

Let's ban that and see how well it works, shall we? Oh wait, they tried that already...

 

[Old Timer]

As for general violence resulting from being under the influence, I have one word for you: ethanol.

Let's ban that and see how well it works, shall we? Oh wait, they tried that already...

Please make a reasonable argument. I am not in favor of alcohol abuse, but there is no comparison in crime between IV drug users and alcohol abusers....

Also, while people can use alcohol in moderation without any untoward effect, I don't see a great deal of social speed balling.....

 

[njac]

I worry about the crimes that will occur in the parking lot of this area.

Can you imagine being a broke addict, knowing that everyone who walks in those doors has some smack? I think that could be very, very ugly.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Please make a reasonable argument. I am not in favor of alcohol abuse, but there is no comparison in crime between IV drug users and alcohol abusers....

That's cause alcohol's legal. In fact, the last time alcohol was made illegal, a bunch of Italians on the East Coast and hillbillies and Appalachia made millions criminally...not to mention they spawned an entire violent underground society that fought for speakeasy cash. It was so bad, they just made it legal again. I mean, really, if an addictive, awareness altering substance such as ethanol can be sold, there really isn't a good reason heroin can't be sold. Now if it were me, I'd make ethanol illegal and marijuana legal.....that would make some sense....

 

[Old Timer]

That's cause alcohol's legal. In fact, the last time alcohol was made illegal, a bunch of Italians on the East Coast and hillbillies and Appalachia made millions criminally...not to mention they spawned an entire violent underground society that fought for speakeasy cash. It was so bad, they just made it legal again. I mean, really, if an addictive, awareness altering substance such as ethanol can be sold, there really isn't a good reason heroin can't be sold. Now if it were me, I'd make ethanol illegal and marijuana legal.....that would make some sense....

Ok more revisionist history. It was not the customers committing crimes to get the alcohol during prohibition, it was the manufacturers and suppliers. Most of the murder in large American cities are over drugs just like prohibition was over alcohol. While legalizing heroin would stop a great deal of crime, the damage to society by making such and addicting substance available on a wider scale would outweigh the benefits of less crime.

 

[MR. C]

Ok more revisionist history. It was not the customers committing crimes to get the alcohol during prohibition, it was the manufacturers and suppliers. Most of the murder in large American cities are over drugs just like prohibition was over alcohol. While legalizing heroin would stop a great deal of crime, the damage to society by making such and addicting substance available on a wider scale would outweigh the benefits of less crime.

What about all the drunk driving deaths? I would guess those deaths outnumber deaths due to hard drug abuse.

I do agree that the damage to society would be great if drugs like heroin, crack, ect where made legal. However, I feel that marijuana should be legalized. I believe its illegality causes greater problems than its use.

giving out needles to IV drug users would help lower disease transmission, but I dont think I would feel comfortable giving them out.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ok more revisionist history.

You do know that all that means is history told - truthfully - but from another angle or viewpoint, right? Like if you were German or Austrian, WWI turned out horribly. Whereas if you are an American or Brit, WWI turned out great. An American revisionist history of WWI would thus tell the story from the Austrian side, the trials and tribulations they went through while fighting the Americans. Some people seem to think it means rewriting history...which it doesn't at all....

It was not the customers committing crimes to get the alcohol during prohibition, it was the manufacturers and suppliers. Most of the murder in large American cities are over drugs just like prohibition was over alcohol. While legalizing heroin would stop a great deal of crime, the damage to society by making such and addicting substance available on a wider scale would outweigh the benefits of less crime.

There wasn't murder by the junkies because it was still relatively cheap. I'd bet the hardcore alcoholics would still kill for a drink. Half of my family are alcoholics..they will do anything for a drink....thankfully a 40oz of Hurricane only costs $1.29. Further, why does it matter what the *source* of illegal activity is? The restriction of alcohol caused massive amounts of violence nonetheless...and more importantly, gave a large degree of power to some very, very unsavory characters. The argument you are making is that alcohol isn't as addictive as heroin....and that's basically it. I'm not so sure the degree of addiction really matters....they both lead to violence, either way. I also doubt severely that legalization of heroin would increase use. Marijuana use isn't increased in Holland. In fact, I think they have the best drug policies in the world. Soft drugs are ok, hard drugs are very solidly restricted.

 

[Old Timer]

I know what revisionist history is. It is not telling it from another point of view. It means revising (which means changing) history. There is such a world of difference between organized crime committed during prohibition and the crimes of individual users of any substance. You compared them as similar and they are not. The same gang warfare is being committed every day in American cities over more powerful drugs.

The potential for abuse is important. While there are many alcoholics and society pays a huge price for their illness, the vast majority of people who consume alcohol are not alcoholics. I have a nice wine collection. I drink wine with dinner several times per week when my schedule permits. I never drink and drive, ever. I can go months without having wine. heroin users, not so much.

There will always be people who cannot and will not get off of these drugs. I don't know what the answers are, I just know more access to heroin and cocaine is NOT the answer.

 

[Tuck]

I know what revisionist history is. It is not telling it from another point of view. It means revising (which means changing) history. There is such a world of difference between organized crime committed during prohibition and the crimes of individual users of any substance. You compared them as similar and they are not. The same gang warfare is being committed every day in American cities over more powerful drugs.

The potential for abuse is important. While there are many alcoholics and society pays a huge price for their illness, the vast majority of people who consume alcohol are not alcoholics. I have a nice wine collection. I drink wine with dinner several times per week when my schedule permits. I never drink and drive, ever. I can go months without having wine. heroin users, not so much.

There will always be people who cannot and will not get off of these drugs. I don't know what the answers are, I just know more access to heroin and cocaine is NOT the answer.

Actually withdrawl from heroin use is much easier than withdrawl from alcohol. Crime due to alcohol actually far exceeds that of any other drug simply due to how pervasive it is in our society. A huge percentage of domestic abuse cases are alcohol related and many are unreported. Alcoholics are only one aspect of the problem. Would the other drugs if legalized result in extremely high crime, or is the bulk of the crime related to the aqusition costs of these drugs? I think the biggest problem with legalization of some of these drugs is not the potential for crime but the fact that many are extremely addicting, even after a single use. But who knows, maybe recreational heroin use would fix America's obesity problem.

 

[PharmDstudent]

The potential for abuse is important. While there are many alcoholics and society pays a huge price for their illness, the vast majority of people who consume alcohol are not alcoholics. I have a nice wine collection. I drink wine with dinner several times per week when my schedule permits. I never drink and drive, ever. I can go months without having wine. heroin users, not so much.

This is just a side note about smoker's cost to society, but anyhow, we just learned about it in our smoking cessation lecture, which was created by UCSF as a CE. Society has to pay $7.18 per pack of cigarettes that are sold.
Here's the breakdown:

Medical Expenditures (1998):
$27.2 billion for ambulatory care
$17.1 billion for hospital care
$6.4 billion for prescription drugs
$19.4 billion for nursing home costs
$5.4 billion for other types of care

Annual lost productivity costs due to illness (1995-1999):
$55.4 billion for men
$26.5 billion for women

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I know what revisionist history is. It is not telling it from another point of view. It means revising (which means changing) history.

Link

Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with newly discovered information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate.

So saying my writing is "revisionist" actually gave it credit rather than accomplishing your goal, which was to discredit it. Revisionist as a "negative" term was rewritten with a new definition not too long ago by economic leftist/social rightist critics in response to Howard Zinn's self-described revisionist book, "A Peoples' History of the US." Since then, they've actually changed the meaning of the term to mean "making **** up off the top of your head." They did it because they couldn't handle the idea of calling Christopher Columbus a murderous thug....even though...you know....he kinda was.



-------------------------------

Everything else has been discussed by others after me....and I'm sick of this thread, anyway....