Helping or Just Speeding Up The Inevitable --- Death

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 23 months ago

   
   New York City health officials on Monday unveiled the city's first public health vending machine, featuring free drug paraphernalia and anti-overdose meds for addicts.
   
   "New York City Democrats are deploying vending machines to dispense crack pipes and other drug paraphernalia.
   
   Health commissioner Ashwin Vasan revealed the machine this week, one of four to be set in the city's worst neighborhoods for drug use. It contains Narcan and drug-test strips,"safe-smoking" pipes, condoms, nicotine gum, lip balm, and tampons. He added that future machines may include syringes.
   
   "Every three hours, we’re losing a New Yorker [to drugs]," Vasan said. "And it looks like 2022 is on track to be our highest year ever in overdoses."
   
   The machines will have "safer sniffing" and "safer smoking" kits. Users won't have to purchase the items but just enter their zip code to receive them for free.
   
   A Washington Free Beacon investigation last year found that despite the Biden administration claiming a multimillion-dollar harm reduction program doesn't spend taxpayer dollars on drug paraphernalia, several Democratic cities hand out crack pipes. Every organization the Free Beacon visited, including in Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Richmond, included crack pipes in their kits."
   https://freebeacon.com/democrats/nyc-de … g-machine/
   https://www.nysun.com/article/vending-m … rack-pipes
   https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/nycs-drug … overnight/
   https://www.cnn.com/audio/podcasts/cnn- … 1a00938ddc
   
   Thoughts
   
   In the end,  does providing drug paraphernalia help or ultimately hurt?
   Encourage drug use or discourage drug use.?
   Speed of death from drug use or sustain life when using drugs?
   
   Lastly, and most importantly, what does this say about our society? This question is hard to consider is it not?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      tsmogposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I'll give it a shot just because of wanting something to do this morning.
      
      First off, on my poking about in 2017 opioid use and overdoses cost the U.S. 1.02 trillion. The value of life lost due to overdose deaths was $480.7 billion. Wow!
      
      So, that leads me to ponder if the Harm-Reduction funded programs will make a dent in that cost to taxpayers. I ask are we comparing billions to millions or thousands? I don't know, yet hope there is a positive outcome from it financially speaking.
      
      The Economics of Injury and Violence Prevention by the CDC
      https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/hea … index.html
      
      And, what about deaths being prevented. Seems one would have to consider the value of one life projected into many. U.S. overdose deaths for 2022 were 110,000. NYC for 2021 had 2,678 overdose deaths. It was a 78% increase over 2019. Definitely a change, right? What does it indicate? Is there an acceptable collateral damage for the ills of society born some say to the fall of Adam and Eve.
      
      Maybe sarcastic, yet where do we discover why from? How many books have been written about it? How many foundations, university studies, and government agency projects have been dedicated to it.
      
      U.S. Recorded Nearly 110,000 Overdose Deaths in 2022 by the New York Times
      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/us/p … eaths.html
      
      For an in depth study of New York City
      New York City Releases 2021 Overdose Data Showing Unprecedented Overdose Levels by NYC Health
      https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/about/pres … evels.page
      
      The data at Unintentional Drug Poisoning (Overdose) Deaths
      in New York City in 2021 by NYC Health Epi Data Brief
      https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/download … ief133.pdf
      
      As for the prompts for thoughts I'll shoot from the hip.
      
      In the end,  does providing drug paraphernalia help or ultimately hurt?
      I think at this time it could not hurt. In other words, something is better than nothing if one thinks there is a problem.
      
      After skimming through that data I linked to for NYC I see they put a lot of emphasis into having data leading in my view to prudent decision making. I would presume with any project they keep data and use it to determine the success of a project. Maybe it will prove not to be successful and terminated.
      
      Encourage drug use or discourage drug use.?
      I don't think it encourages it or discourages it. I do think it may plant a seed in some to many users minds to think about what they are actually doing. Hopefully, and I don't use that term loosely, they may seek help to stop using. Of course my sharing may be naive. Oh well!
      
      Speed of death from drug use or sustain life when using drugs?
      I don't know and will ponder about it.
      
      Lastly, and most importantly, what does this say about our society? This question is hard to consider is it not?
      
      Answering the last first, yes it is hard to consider especially when one considers life experiences within life itself.
      
      On the first I accept that there are macro societies such as nation to nation or even state to state. Then there are micro societies for instance state/region to state/region followed by city to city or township to township. Don't forget within those are rural vs metro vs suburban. But, a lot of dialogue will use the blanket of 'in general'.
      
      First, why do people use drugs/alcohol to begin with. Two reasons are socializing and not oddly capitalizing on the effects of them to enjoy a social setting. The second is to escape life for who knows what reason. Unfortunately those are catalysts in my view that has a propensity of becoming an illness as science seems to say and is arguable. If they are abusive is also arguable.
      
      But, aren't they doing the same thing as watching soap operas every day. It is just that the mind altering drugs/alcohol is detrimental and damaging. I'm thinking now of the usage of Soma in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley written in 1932. It too was a recreational drug, but acceptable.
      
      Soma in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley | What is Soma in Brave New World? by Study.com
      https://study.com/learn/lesson/what-is- … world.html
      
      Here is where I ask "What are they trying to escape" in our society today with its many cultures and subcultures"? Or, as is in many cases, too, are they trying to escape of themselves as unique individuals? I'll give an example. I escape the world by taking naps. Puff! I am gone to the world. No more problems! Or, I am simply an old guy ha-ha
      
      Anyway, Huxley recognized it way back in 1932 to the extent he made Soma acceptable for society to be used. What hints was he giving to his readers.
      
      Well, enough wandering 'for now'. Thanks for the opportunity. Definitely a seed planted for maybe writing an article if I get further motivated. Thanks!

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for putting so much thought into your response. Great food for thought.

         replyreport
   2. 82

      peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      The biggest problem with drugs is that it is illegal. If you make it legal to sell drugs and to own drugs, a lot of crime related to drugs will be avoided.
      (The prohibition of alcohol in the US and all the gangs and mafia involved shows the difference between a legal and illigal product)
      Give permission to sellers, tax it, and ask for all the paperwork you need for a normal drugstore. So you have people selling the drugs who know what they are selling and have done exams in healthcare and chemistry.
      If you know where the drugs is sold, you also have control over who is buying the stuff. (mandatory ID card etc. like buying Alcohol and Cigartes)
      The tax on drugs can be used to help the people who are in need of help related to drugs. And you have much more controll over the whole thing.
      Of course the black market will never go away (selling to kids) but it will help enourmsly and save a lot of lives.(by eliminating the gun violance around it, drugs transport, drug wars etc.)
      A vending machine with clean needles and other stuff to prevent deseases is a good thing but you should start at the source of the problem, not at it's tail..

      replyreport
      1. 99

         DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

         That is a very European attitude.
         
         Going back to before prohibition in the US, alcohol consumption was about 2.5 gallons. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-th … rely-work/ Making it illegal during that period probably saved a lot of lives, despite the mafia, and alcohol consumption is now back up to over 3 gallons per person across the US https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/al … -by-state/ and there more cases of liver disease secondary to alcohol than there ever was during prohibition.
         
         So even though no one can know what will happen for sure, if drugs are legalized there are going to be more drug addicts, not less--at least based on the number of alcoholics since alcohol was made so widely available after it was legalized.
         
         The idea that a tax is going to be used for drug addicts is wrong, based on the historical ways governments have claimed they will use taxes and what actually happens. (Look into how lotteries in the US, which they claimed were set up for education, actually do not add anything to education.)
         
         I can tell you personal experiences of watching teens in Spain shoot up in public, but that is not really the point. There is no way, in my opinion, that you can claim that making drugs legal is going to save lives. Most places have already prohibited vending machines that sell tobacco to minors, so vending machines to encourage addicts is NOT a good thing.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

            If you make drugs legal you have much more control over the process and how it enters society. You have more control over the quality and the quantity you give people.
            Control is how you handle a problem. If things are illegal it is far worse.
            Drugs kill, but you get rid of the homicides and violence related to the illegality of drugs. You don't have homicides related to the car industry because buying and selling a car is legal when you have the papers to do so. There is no car gang shooting another car gang to get control over the city to sell cars. (or whatever motive drugs sellers have to use violence)
            Illegality breeds crime and violence.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

               Not sure I understand, or agree, with this.  You seem to be assuming that if drugs are made legal all (or certainly the large majority) illegal drug trafficking will cease.  This is patently false as the illegal drug trade will be cheaper than legal drugs and will certainly still be out there.
               
               Certainly it didn't work that way with alcohol, but then we put a massive effort into shutting down production, and it isn't cheaper to smuggle it in.  But we already put massive efforts into stopping production, and a few grams of crack is a lot easier to smuggle than bottles of moonshine.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't think it will be worth building and maintaining an illegal market on a big scale.
                  Often you can make more money the legal way. As the saying goes. It is better to own a bank than to rob one.
                  Of course, you will have the fake drugs sold cheaper, like the fake Nikes and Rolexes. But I can imagine that the big drug companies who will control the cocaine and heroin market legally will not accept that and probably buy out the left over small cartels. Bringing a cheap and expensive version of the same thing on the market.(one for lawyers and tv-stars and one for lost souls)
                  But as with alcohol, cigarettes and guns. I don't think it should be allowed to be advertised. In the end, it is a product that damages health. So yes there should be rules and conditions for the sellers and buyers.
                  But the huge advantage of legalizing it is that the market and all its side effects can be controlled. And a bonus is that the government will generate tax.

                  replyreport
2. 76

   wildernessposted 23 months ago

   We have a massive problem with people using illegal drugs, often dying from the practice.  So we will force others to provide them with the tools they need to use those drugs, thus...what?  Helping to stop the practice?  I don't think so.
   
   Will it save lives?  Highly unlikely - the more probable result is that addicts will live a little long (on average) before succumbing, with the same net deaths. 
   
   Will it discourage new young users from using?  With free paraphernalia rather than having to buy it themselves, the answer is obvious.
   
   The bottom line, IMO, is that we will spend taxpayer money for zero results, or even for negative results with more addicts.  The mind of today's liberal is truly unfathomable...except to note that its only concern is today, never tomorrow and the long term results of its grandiose plans is nearly always negative.  Cover up and hide the symptoms today while growing the problem ever bigger, and that's exactly what this idiotic idea will do.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I think offering free paraphernalia only promotes and shows America excepts the use of street drugs, to the extent of offering free stuff.  No options for a better drug-free life. More or less out and out condoning drug use.
      
      It would appear our society has totally accepted some will use drugs, and need stuff, so let's provide it, sort of like lunch programs for kids at school. Just put a big ass bandaid on the issue, and forget about it.  However, lunch programs promote better health, drugs not so much... When did we or I should say some, take common sense out of the equation?  It seems some can consider, and think about horrible problems, and someway come out on the end justifying just about anything these days.
      Seems we may be thinking ourselves into oblivion.
      
      Free drug paraphernalia only leaves more cash to purchase more drugs.
      for a user, In my view.

      replyreport
      1. 99

         DrMark1961posted 23 months agoin reply to this

         The comparison to the school lunch program is, unfortunately, spot on. It is the same thing, the government supporting bad habits. Kids llearn to eat sweets and unhealthy foods at home? Lets give them more at school so they can continue their bad habits and there will not be as much waste. Kids doing drugs? Lets make the paraphenalia free so they will find it easier to support their habit. Pretty sad.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            It is sad, in fact, Like a bad dream, just inconceivable that a state government would offer this sort of program, and actually, I am sure some support this kind of bazaar action, to give drug addicts what they need to support their addiction... Oh my.

            replyreport