"VANCOUVER (February 9, 2005) -Enrolment begins here today in North America's first clinical trial of prescribed heroin for people with chronic heroin addiction who have not been helped by available treatment options." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150076,00.html This irritates me as much as needle junkies getting free needles. I am a type 1 diabetic and because I am a type 1 diabetic I need to inject insuling into my body on a regular basis to keep my blood sugars in control. I inject this insuling with the assistance of needles. Why is it that I dont receive free needles? Instead I have to pay XXXX amount of dollars a year to survive. Yes I can understand the importance of trying to help those who may have surcomb to addiction but none the less they chose that life style. Personally I did not choose to be a diabetic and neither did the person who contracted a form of cancer. As far as I know someone with cancer does not receive anything for free to help them.
I agree with you totally, there are limited health care funds, these should be channeled to those that really need it than to those junkies. It is a waste of money giving to these junkies who do nothing to contribute to society and instead is a drain on the society's resources.
what the this isnt right at all. Although in the UK we get free health care it is still wrong. If it is actully heroin they are giving them they should be arrested for it!. In the UK for die-hard addicts we have a methodone program being tested in a prison at the moment. But they should not give them the hard drug. And as for giving them free needles to do so is morally wrong. There are people out there each day in need of a needle to inject whatever to keep them alive, who ever thought the idea needs to be commited to a mental health hospital and fast!
It has been trialled in parts of Europe and was found to actually save money for the economy because fewer cases end up in the courts due to the fact addicts don't have to resort to crime to feed their habit.
I live in Canada and we get free health care as well. Just not to the extent of certain medical supplies. Thankfully I have a job that provides a health care plan so I dont have to pay the full price for my supplies.
Given the high cost of medical care, you are lucky to have that for free. For us, frankly speaking either we are very rich or we have medical insurance, if not it is better to be dead than to be sick. We can't afford the cost of being sick
I don't think you should say giving free needles and free heroine to addicts is wrong. What's wrong is that people with diabetes still have to pay for their needles, it's wrong that people with cancer or any other terminal illness don't have the money for proper health care. I don't see the point in stopping the free services to addicts, it's one good thing they can do. Taking that away just because you don't have free needles does not help you, nor them or anyone else. But it is true they should give an equal treatment to sick people who can't help their desease (however it is arguable that heroin addicts chose to be addicts, there's a lot more involved than free choice) Just my 2 cents.
You are absolutely right, but in economics of real life, human needs or demands are unlimited while resources or supply are finite. There is a need for allocation of supplies to those that need it most. Scarcity is a way of life, and in allocating scarce resources I would rather give diabetes free needles rather than to addicts.
I dont think the needles are the main problem here. If they are giving heroin to the inmates they will: Want to leave Comit More crime to go back to prison not get of the drug The aim is to get them off the heroin not to keep them on it. Thats why a replacement drug can help them ween off the drug.
I fully agree with this measure. Drugs are expensive because they're illegal and they have to be bought on the black market. The problem with this is that addicts soon end up in financial ruin and they start commiting various crimes in order to get money for drugs. I'd rather have the government giving them drugs (which cost next to nothing to produce anyway) for free than having drug adicts running around doing crimes and putting other people's lifes in danger.
Ofcourse, but you have to think back to why they are trying this method when there are alternatives. It is obvious the so called alternatives are not working like they should. If the methadon program would be great and yield a, let's say, 90% succes rate, people wouldn't need to turn to alternative methods. As for the scarcity of resources, it is simply a question of allocation. Is it really needed to spend millions of dollars yearly on the food of the president? Is it an absolute necessity that for example the secretary of defense can sleep in all the most expensive hotels while abroad? Does he have to take all of his personnel with him? And I'm not even talking about security here, which can be argued about. The same goes for eccentric rich people who enjoy flying with their private jet to the other side of the world, just to get the best oranges to go with their cocktail. In my opinion, the world is going crazy. There is a mentality among wealthy people that they can do whatever they want. That they bear no consequences to their actions. It's the same here in the so called western civilisation as in the middle east or the african republics, where the ones with power and/or money don't care about anyone else. I might be going a little off topic here, but my point is that there should be no scarcity, and certainly not when it comes to basic needs like health care, employment and education. One flight with John Travolta's private jet could pay for the education of an entire african village, it could provice lessons for those people on how to farm on dried out land. It could provide needles for a diabetic for the rest of his life. I'm quite enraged about all this that happens and the fact that there's not a lot we can do about it, but creating awareness is one thing I can do. I hope I did achieve a little something here.
I see nothing wrong with testing this. If it works, then fantastic, you're lowering crime rates, lowering death rates and it's win win. It isn't that expensive compared to other drugs, and if you're going to bring personal responsibility into this, then you could argue why smokers get lungs and drinkers get livers. If it doesn't work, then stop it, but nothing wrong with trying.
Waste of money just like in my area just not here paying people to stop smoking cigarettes wtf. I think ill take up smoking again and get my paycheck
The worlds way of population control. When your deciding to take something harmful into your body in excess accept that you will one day die as a result. Or we can just offer free cigarettes and liqour in hopes they change.
You missed the point. If you're complaining about personal responsibility, why do smokers get free lung transplants and drinkers get free liver transplants. If you're complaining about money, either of those transplants is a hell of a lot more costly than a course of methadone.
People aren't robbing others or getting AIDS due to cigarettes and booze. I think that's the main reason for the program.