I said it before and I'll say it again. Addictions are a problem with living not just the use of drugs/gambling/sex/food etc. Take away the drugs and an addict will likely find something else to mood alter with, until they are taught how to live. It is our society that is sick and this sickness produces disenfranchised individuals who turn to substance abuse with the goal of "nothing hurts when you are numb". You can give addicts drugs and you can harm reduce all you want but until we look at the root causes of addictions (poverty and disenfranchisement) we are just throwing good money after bad. The Campbell government has done more for the illegal drug trade than any other government. Their cuts to welfare and the lack of actual progress (in fact decline) in social housing has produced a whole new army of people ripe for the taking by addictions. This army spreads their poison to others (like our children in schools) and the problem continues to grow in geometric perportions. So the next time you hear John Les talk about (under-) funding drug programs or other band-aid solutions, remember his government is in the drug buisness by implimenting policies that create the exact conditions that foster addictions. Their lack of knowledge plus their misguided ideology has been the drug trades best partner so far and until they agree to talk to those who really know what is going on and express willingness to fix what really needs to be fixed your children and mine will be the next free targets of the organized drug business.

It's called tombstone engineering

This just in: Google or dogpile.com, yahoo, whatever and read: "Mexico decriminalizes some drugs."

Finally some common sense in the war against drugs.

Sullivan's right on in this regard. Drug addiction is not a sickness or a disease.

It's a RESPONSE to sickness, pain and suffering and disease, and as such, exactly a handicap, which is the mayor's intellectual model regarding the issue--and a very appropriate one.

Of course it'll take Canada another ten or twenty years to wake up and see that organized crime by way of the drug industry has nearly poisoned every institution of democracy--exactly as it has done in Mexico.

Grow up people!

Incidentally, you cannot treat a CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR as though it is a medical or social problem, as the harm-reduction-treatment gurus do, unless you make it a NON-CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR.

Duh!

And forget what the RCMP boss has to say on the issue, eh. (He was in the big CanWest paper spouting all that crap). Most cops always talk like that.

It's about their jobs and vailidating years of choking heroin and cocaine addicts so they don't hide the evidence.

Truman

Back in the early 60`s I got busted for a small quantity of weed..one of the arresting narcs was
a Sgt. Donald..a writeup in the Star Weekly (remember Star Weekly) told how he had broken some womans neck and killed her doing the "choke" technique. He was one scary dude.

I'm a Mt. "Pleasant"(-?) Vancouverite who has had his apartment robbed twice,with a unsuccessful 3rd b&e attempt.
My car in underground parking has been broken into scores of times (a monthly occurence) such that I no longer bother to lock my car doors. I prefer allowing thieves to look and find nothing of value than to break windows or locks.

I support the idea of drug maintenance for hard core addicts because:

-If drug addiction is fuelling Canada's top property crime rate as we have in Vancouver, surely giving addicts their drugs of addiction is a win/win proposition:

-The commonly felt social malaise stemming from unending property crime in one of the world's most "livable" (SIC) cities would ease off.

-Addicts would no longer feel compelled to make others' lives miserable in the course of feeding their habits, by victimizing fellow citizens.

-Addicts would be much safer and healthier.
Careful dosing in a clinical setting means fewer overdoses and deaths, and less disease.

-The financial, health, and social costs to taxpayers of providing drug maintenance programs would arguably be very much cheaper than the current costs stemming from crime, war-on-drugs policing,disease, deaths, and welfare payments.

-Addicts would be much better able to lead functional lives, holding down regular jobs, contributing to society. Opiate addiction in particular is quite compatible with normal living, as it doesn't impair the way meth or crack can impair.

-It would lessen the current societal hypocricy
towards addictive drugs we have now.
perhaps THE most deadly, destructive addictive drugs are the legal ones, especially alcohol and tobacco, which, compared to illegal drugs, kill far far more Canadians who use them, and also victimize others (drunk driving, drunken violence, 2nd hand smoke).Misused and wrongly prescribed prescription drugs arguably cause more unnecessary deaths in Canada than do illegal drugs.
If I HAD to choose, I'd prefer my child was an opium addict than an alcoholic. He/she would be more likely to live a long, productive, happy, fulfilling life. A few examples of famous long time opium addicts who did so: Thomas DeQuincey, Jean Cocteau, Wilkie Collins, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Charles Baudelaire.
Countless successful jazz and rock musicians have been users, although of injectible, black market heroin, their typical opiate of choice, which likely presents more potential problems than does simple, natural opium and its various forms.

-We need to wake up to the simple fact that addiction in various forms is a simple fact of NORMAL life. Most Canadians are addicted to caffeine, for instance. To go a day without their fix is likely to bring on intolerable withdrawal symptoms: headaches, irritability, depression, inability to focus. New evidence suggests certain foods (sugars, fats) also provoke addiction/withdrawal symptoms encouraging obesity, illness, and early death.

-It is societal hypocricy and injustice to demonize and criminalize one set of addictive substances and their users, while tolerating other (often worse) addictive substances which
by historical happenstance ended up as legal.

For these reasons I completely support Mayor Sullivan's proposal for gov't sponsored drug maintenance programs.(Personally, I'd prefer it was Jim Green at the helm voicing the idea instead of Sullivan, but that's another discussion).

Bob999, I don't think I've ever read a more common sense and intelligent comment on the issue. You pretty well said it all.

Especially: "It is hypocrisy and injustice to demonize one set of addictive substances and their users..."

This is so true for so many pragmatic reasons too, not the least of which is the nearly dissociative state reasoning that our society will ever support "treating" criminal behaviour in a global fashion that will have a significant impact.

Not to mention that if we could get the criminals out of the situation heroin's only worth about 4 cents per injection anyway. Okay throw in medical fees etc., it might go to $1.00.

Good on Mayor Sullivan for bringing some light to this issue which is more about a failure of the human intellect than anything else.

Right Truman. As you say, we need to get the criminals out of the loop. It's the prohibition which leads to petty crime by addicts and serious, often violent, crime by criminal gangs made strong, rich, and brutal by our anti-drug laws.

How did the US mafia grow in wealth and power, and stay powerful for decades?
Alcohol (and drug) prohibition allowed them to start raking in never before seen amounts of easy $, enough to successfully start buying off or threatening police officers, judges,and senators.Only in recent years have anti-racketeering laws have finally started reducing mafia power.
Why are Hell's Angels so rich, powerful, and brutal today?
Drug prohibition.

I agree that criminalizing drugs is the problem, not the solution. The police in the war on drugs are part of an immoral "industry",
that generates paychecks for vested interests in police dept., prosecuting attorney, and DEA offices. There are a few brave police officers publicly calling for drug legalization to replace a failed anti-drug war. Former US Republican Secretary of State George Schultz is another who wants to replace the war on drugs with legalization or decriminalization.

If only we had some more such rational well placed voices such as Mayor Sullivan.
P.M. Stephen Harper prides himself on his intellect and reason, but his get tough stance on drug crimes makes me woder if he's jettisoning reason in favour of pandering to a witch hunting, knee jerk social conservative crowd that helped elect him. He can't get away with outlawing abortion for them, but perhaps he thinks he can retain credibility with the moralists by ramping up the demonization/criminalization
of all illegal drugs, including cannabis.
If Harper ever gets his coveted majority, it's likely to get much uglier.

Moreover--I've always wanted to say this: Every time the cops do some cocaine confiscation you get headlines like, "Cops get $10,0000,0000 worth of cocaine etc. etc. adnauseum. Well folks guess what. First divide that ten million by ten, you get one million then divide it by ten again you get one hundred thousand, divide it by ten again, you get $10,000. And for all you stupid criminalizers out there. This is exactly what that ten million dollars worth of cocaine cost the cartels. TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.

In other words, chump change. Nothing.

It's the prohibition that creates the market and the value.

Is this rocket science or something?

By the way, did any of you guys and girls find mention of the new Mexican decriminalization of drugs in Len and Dave's dog and pony show--their private family gazette, that is. Just wondering--because I just rescued a copy from its rightful resting place, the garbage can, in order not to wrongfully accuse all of its toadie writers and editors of pretending that the new Mexican drug laws are not actually among the news worth printing.

But then that's just me, eh. I guess a story about a 95 year-old woman getting a hole in one is a much more important.

Drugs, crime, the Mexicans hosting American bureaucrats a couple of days ago and not telling them what's up, and the Mexican senate passing the legislation by a margin of 2 to 1--now what would make me think that should be in the local monopolized press? I guess I'm just a hopeless conspiracist.

Or maybe they didn't pay their Reuter's bill.

Truman:
The story was in yesterdays NYTimes, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-mexico-drugs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

and also earlier, on April 29, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/world/americas/29mexico.html

The Globe also covered it yesterday:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060502.wmexdrug0502/BNStory/International/

Also this, in yesterday's Globe, is mildly interesting in the current context:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060502.wdrugs0502/BNStory

Thanks, G. Oh Oh, was it in yesterday's CanWest
Pun or Providence? Maybe I just missed it, eh, in which case I might hafta apologize. (I'm getting good at it).

Truman:
Can't say, don't consider those rags papers. Couldn't find the story in the Toronto Star either. It didn't have prominent place in the NYTimes on the 29th either. But it was there.

Thanks again, G. West. See what I mean. This has just got to be a top story. The Mexicans having the balls to piss of the Americans and go ahead and decriminalize drugs. If this doesn't appear in the local gazettes (glad you see them for what they are, G.) this is just hovering on the border between malfeasance and corruption.

Have they demonstrated conclusively that the safe injection site is succeeding in its objectives, or is it still too soon? I've heard credible arguments from either side.

I saw Stephen Lewis being interviewed on Monday evening. I was following his argument closely until he referred to access to hard drugs as a 'human right' for addicts. Puhleeeeze - I'm open to the argument, but let's try to assert some responsible language useage here, Mr. Lewis.

p.s. this just wouldn't be a nightbloom quote if I didn't insert something like: 'Why must the liberal-Left always speciously appropriate the human rights discourse as a tool of argument simply to further its own social engineering agenda?' ....but maybe I won't say it this time - I'll just think it really loudly....

Well night--may I call you night? (You never give your real name, eh)--you're right, it wouldn't be a nightbloom comment without your silly quote. As for Stephen Lewis--
go to the Washington Post.com and click in their search box: "How Aids in Africa was overstated," to get a feel for my opinion of that goofy man, after all his disgusting nonsense that the whole population of Africa was on the verge of being exterminating by an imaginary hiv bug. He would have been correct if he had blamed it on starvation, war and genocide, not to mention poisons known as HIGHLY ACTIVATED ANTI-RETROVIRAL DRUGS that either destroy the ability of all kinds of cells to replicate or conveniently produce the kinds of symtoms and progression to immunosuppression that the pharmies are pretending they are designed to combat.

Otherwise...just in case you're referring to me as one of those "liberal lefties" who are trying to "appropriate the human rights discourse for a tool..."

To echo your level of maturity on this issue:

Am not.

If the name of the game here is to slow down organized crime then maybe providing drugs to addicts will work. But if the aim here is to stop the crimes such as B & Es mentioned in a post above, I highly doubt it will work.

Even if the addicts living on the streets were provided with free drugs how are they going to make money to live? The hardcore users cannot just start having a normal life as soon as they are given free drugs. To think so is rather naive in my opinion. Sorry but that comment sort of made me chuckle. Just because they don't have to commit crimes to obtain their drugs doesn't mean that they don't feel that they have to commit those same crimes in order to eat and find a place to sleep.

Treatment is needed so very badly to help these people work through the problems that contributed to them becoming addicts in the first place. They need life/job skills and counselling to help them recover from the addiction, gain self-confidence, etc., and have skills to help them survive in the "real world". Treatment and prevention will give you a far greater bang for your buck as far as I'm concerned.

I have a couple of questions about Sullivan's plan ...

How do addicts access the free drugs? Do they just walk into the clinic and extend their arm or what?

How often can they access these drugs? My cousin has a $200/day habit. Is she and others like her going to be given that much drugs every day? How will they monitor drug usage? My cousin doesn't have any ID of any kind. Someone like her could easily figure out ways to go to more than one site each day.

What about the addicts that are addicted to more than just heroin? If they are going to provide heroin, why stop there? Why not crack and meth too?

Who qualifies for the free drugs? Does the addict have to be homeless or will it be available for anyone who walks in and asks?

Does the introduction of Sullivan's plan mean that there won't be anymore money forthcoming for treatment centres?

I don't expect people on here to have all these answers but I certainly think that these, and many other questions, need to be answered before the program is implemented. I'm a teacher. I see how governments waste money all the time. I hope Sullivan's program doesn't turn into just another example of government waste.

One step at a time, Spedteacher. Supposedly your cousin has a $200/day habit. She won't have to spend her time hooking and stealing; If the drugs are manufactured by a reputable pharmaceutical, they'll cost maybe a buck an injection. Your cousin can spend the time she's using now to maintain her addiction to the drug culture, which, believe it or not some addicts absolutely LOVE, to think about something else besides getting drugs. If your cousin's the kind of person I get in your picture of her, she'll probably get bored with the whole thing after a few years of not dodging the cops and criminals. It's a lifestyle, which is to a large extent an adventure for her.

Jeez, sped, there's never going to be a time when anyone can walk into a drugstore or clinic and say, "Please give me some drugs," and walk out again. They're going to be regulated. There will be systems in place to ensure that the recipient has a genuine medical and therapeutic need; that she has a long-standing addiction; maybe even that she's a local resident of a certain duration. These are the least of the issues; the drug users must themselves be decriminalized before any of this can begin to turn the current ugly situation around.

And one of the most appealing aspects of decriminalization is that the families of addicts would be able to cut out all of this "tough love" crap, which means "quit using these awful drugs and hanging around with these criminals and we'll accept you back home again"--not to mention feeling shocked and awed when their kids turn up dead of overdose or murder. Their kids wouldn't be criminals just by virtue of being alive, which they are now.

We've had enough of this ugliness. It's time to look somewhere else for the answers, and Mayor Sullivan's ideas are a good place to start.

FYI: Just saw that Anna Maria Tremonti is going to have some cartel-smasher from Medellin, Colombia on The Current tomorrow. He's advocating for the legalization of heroin and cocaine from what I can gather.

"Tough Love" is the only love. Why accept a low standard of behaviour?

Truman
Did you see this in today's NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/world/americas/04mexico.html

I'll just post the headline and a couple of paras:

Spedteacher,
Your cousin is an addict and it is not merely a lifestyle, as Truman suggests, and she will not merely tire of it, as Truman suggest, as she gets older.
If that was the case this debate wouldn't be what it is.
Most addicts either die of the disease or get clean, that is the sad reality of addiction. All of Trumans logic sounds great if you don't understand addiction but it is a lifelong affliction characterized by self centerdness and a spiritual bankruptcy. Let me be clear, I don't mean religious banruptcy, I mean a spiritual condition where the addicts spirit is broken and all care and concern for anything beyond their need to get drugs comes in a distant second.
Legal drugs will not change that, the addict will still be self centered to the core and the drugs will have to come first and their thinking will "the community owes me as opposed to what can I do for my community" and, in most cases, will be a lifelong drain on society. It is sad when one knows most are capable of change.
Spedteacher, your cousin can get well like many of us have but she has to find the desire from within to seek positive change and sadly that desire will become even more elusive with legal drugs, which will of course be free for those who are too sick to work for the money to buy them (which will be most)
I just got back from a week spent mostly in East L.A. looking at a program that deals with hardcore gang members who want to work and escape the gang life. I am not for the three strikes law in the states but most of those I got to know in the program are seeking change because they either have two strikes gainst them already and don't want to go to jail for life or they want to get out before they get two or three strikes gainst them. I guess three strikes does have a motivational component to it.
On Saturday night on CNN a half hour program will be on called "Homicide in Hollenback" will be aired and the non profit program that is featured "Homeboy Industries" is where I spent a large portion of my time in L.A. I got the same feelings of sadness that I get in the DTES as I walked around the neighbourhoods there, not so much addiction there but a loss of hope for most who live there.
These gang members have some very similar feelings that addicts have and the gangs become their addiction, in fact, they have Gang Anonymous meetings in a back room at Homeboy every week, just like AA oR NA.
I don't think Truman will see the co-relation but you really have to understand the emotional/feeling side of addiction to see a comparison.
And yes Spedteacher there is only so much government money allocated to deal with addiction issues so treatment options will get less funding if Sam has his way, he doesn't believe addicts can change anyways.
I hope and pray your cousin finds the courage to change before Sam can do any more damage with his goofy ideas, she is so worth it in the eyes of God and those who know and love her.

barryjo
How did your LA trip go? Still working on my contact to see if I can get someone to listen to your pitch. Don't think I've forgotten you.

G West,
It was very interesting, seeing those less fortunate overcome adversity and the process involved in facilitating the process has led me to believe, after twelve years of research, that most people can overcome desperate situations if they can find the desire to change.
At Homeboy some have a strike or two against them and are deathly afraid of strike three, while a couple of guys are in wheelchairs from gunshot wounds and that was enough for them to find the desire needed to facilitate change while still others were younger and learned from the mistakes of the older gang members and hadn't suffered the dissterous consequences they had but knew they were headed in that direction and that created the motivation for them to seek change.
I wonder where the motivation for change will come from up here if we give addicts free/ legal drugs and supply less good quality treatment options. In Vancouver we already have a scenario where and addict can get heroin (NAOMI trials) or methadone on demand but try to get into detox or treatment. It's hurry up and wait and for an addict in pain every moment seems like hours and that window of opportunity where the addict considers recovery closes quickly and sadly they give up and surrender to the disease and demons that haunt them.
We need to put more emphasis on programs that support those who would like to change rather than putting all our efforts into initiatives that provide the poison that is killing the addict. Granted limited harm reduction should be available for the small percentage of addicts that for whatever reason can't change but to tell addicts as Sam Sullivan has that they all have a disability and can't change creates a situation where addicts who are sick will buy into the b.s. in spite of the fact that thousands do get well and have very productive lives.

Now, now Truman, I was being self-deprecating in my tone, but my point is a valid one. I'm on-side (more or less) on the issue. But those of us (like you and I) who support humane accomodation of the most down-&-out cases should be wary of interloping newcomers to the debate, like this UN apparatchik, who come on heavy with a "human rights" agenda. We jeopardize both the harm reduction effort & the (totally unrelated) human rights endeavour by allowing concepts to get blurred, amorphous, and finally totally undefinable & incoherent...and therefore easy prey for the opponents of either.

It appears to me that spedteacher's example of a cousin's $200 a day habit gives lie to spedteachers' assertion that addict related crime won't decrease even if addicts are provided with free or low cost drugs.

If an addict goes from needing $200+ a day to survive, to needing , say $35, that's $165 or 82% less stealing or trick turning required each day.
Why would addicts continue stealing at a rate far beyond their need to do so, and further risk unnecessary arrest and incarceration?

You also ignore Scandinavian studies (Europe is
already way ahead of us - Vancouver is not a pioneer here). European studies of drug maintenance show significant decreases in crime among maintained addicts, as well an increase in productive activity (success in school/steady employment).

You seem to have an unwarranted prejudice against people, like your cousin, who happen to be in a state of addiction (as I pointed out earlier, MOST Canadians are addicted to some substance or other, be it caffeine, sugar, nicotine, prescription drugs,alcohol)... as if addicts can't or won't want to do anything else useful with their lives, even if they are given cheap legal access to their drugs.
You say they'll keep on stealing anyway!
Stats and reason suggest otherwise.

Canadian society is filled with alcoholics,
prescription pain killer and tranquilizer addicts,not to mention well heeled cocaine and heroin addicts, who, despite having monkeys on their backs, continue in normal careers and lives.

It is first and foremost the prohibition of drugs that compels "low living" among addicts, not the state of physical addiction itself, as spedteacher would have it.
****************************
On the new Mexican laws legalizing small amounts of drugs: a welcome move, but the amounts deemed to be legal to possess are so small, many users will still face arrest for having not abnormal personal use amounts on them!
5 grams of cannabis is a unfairly low ceiling, and 5 grams of raw opium is even more ridiculously low, an ultra-mild dose even for a virgin opium smoker/eater!

nightbloom, I was a bit heavy-handed alright. Sorry about that. But I do think there is room in the debate for a human rights consideration. If I have a right to get tylenol 3's when I pull a muscle, I think addicts might just have a right to get some heroin to quell the pain of a lifetime of psychological distress, the origin of which is in the trauma experienced before most of them even began to use these substances. Heroin, after all, is medically an analgesic, not significantly different that the morphine you'll get when your medically-approved pain is too overwhelming.

I loathe being in agreement with Stephen Lewis, who I believe may have just done more harm to Africa than anyone since Liepold 2 of Belgium, but I think it might be appropriate to include human rights in the debate.

Certainly I think a drug user has a right not to be throttled by the police when they're searching for evidence. That's a human right against illegal search and seizure. And I admit that I don't believe the police in Vancouver do that anymore, but they certainly did in the past. I saw them.

Bobb999,
Crime would still flourish addiction is characterized by total self centerdness and most addicts need money to survive and don't want to work and will continue to do crime, after all their self centered behaviour leaves them devoid of concern for others and the consequences of their actions.
You are right though, crime would go down minimally, there will still be a black market for drugs that are more potent than the ones the government will provide.
You try to use drugs like caffine and cigarettes or even alcohol as comparisons to heroin or cocaine, while they are related these harder drugs lead to a much more self seeking and self centered lifestyle where care and concern for others well being is almost non existent.
If you want to talk about Scandanavian studies look to Sweden where a three pillar approach where prevention, treatment and control measures are the key. They were one of the first countries to prescribe heroin in Europe from 64-67 but stopped as they noted it had a much more negative than positive effect on society.
As for Mexican law changes, look a little farther south to Columbia where in 1994 they decriminalized small amounts of cocaine for personal use. Since then addiction rates have risen and then government of the day is trying to recriminalize it.

Vancouver Courier has a good article on how addicts now benefitting from the pilot heroin maintenance program are going to be hung out to dry soon when the program winds down, and ends.
It also touches on the success of similar European programs.http://vancourier.com/issues06/051106/opinion/051106op1.html
re.barryjo's drugs and "concern for others" theory: QU.:
What drug is most closely associated with domestic violence, sundry assaults, murders, impairment while driving causing death and injury to self and others?
Cocaine? Heroin? (the "real bad HARD drugs" you speak of). NO! It's our old friendly "softee"
Mr. Booze! Alcohol also reduces life spans of abusers significantly, due to a myriad of booze related illnesses. How about smokers and "concern for others". 2nd hand smoke is injurious, even deadly to those living around smokers.
Making a spouse ill, and/or depriving a spouse of a partner by risking dying early due to "selfishly smoking", should figure near the top of any theory of "addiction and self centeredness", should it not?

Contrary to commonplace ill-informed "wisdom",
those "real bad hard drugs", if accurately and hygienically dosed,have virtually NO serious
deleterious effects on physical health. For instance, there are no diseases associated with heroin itself, beyond physical addiction (which is also a trait of caffeine). The health problems/dangers stem mainly from the prohibition, not the drug in and of itself, where as, with our good legal friends alcohol and tobacco smoke, the drugs IN AND OF THEMSELVES cause a long list of deadly diseases, which heroin and cocaine do not.
eg.Dirty needles cause liver disease, not heroin, while Alcohol ITSELF causes liver disease, and death.

Your "self centeredness" theory of addiction
is wrong headed in my view.
A theory of SELF MEDICATION is more plausible.
From my own experience I've become a firm believer in the "brain chemistry" model of mental health.For instance, I take 2 natural supplements, 5HTP (a form of tryptophan), and SAMe, both of which stimulate production of neurotransmitters such as serotonin,dopamine and others. My mood, and mental focus have improved greatly since I began "self centeredly" adjusting my brain chemistry. In fact, my relations with others have also improved, because I find myself more functional mentally and emotionally.

There is a theory about opiate use, I tend to give some credence to: Opiate addicts may have a body chemistry where their bodies produce low,insufficient amounts of endorphins (the body's natural opioids), compared to normal people's bodies. Taking "supplemental" opiates
(opium, heroin, prescription pain killers) may, in many cases, be a way to remedy a deficiency of an important substance the body needs and produces. I believe natural endorphins play a role beyond pain relief, and may have an important role in mental functioning.

Cocaine gives users a surge of dopamine.
Personally, I believe cocaine users would be better served in adjusting their dopamine levels in a gentler, more beneficial fashion such as by taking SAMe, but they'll have to figure that out for themselves!

(continued...)

(continued. This topic is near and dear to my heart - can't help being long winded...)

Rather than self centeredly seeking kicks, I believe addiction often has more to do with
attempting to feel NORMAL.
Normal well adjusted people may experience a life of minimal anxiety, are cheerful, not depressed, enriched by relationships and careers, can focus mentally.

A less healthy, poorly adjusted person may find
life an unfulfilling insurmountable challenge, with their relationships, jobs,and day to day existence associated too often with anxiety and depression.

I'd suggest the difference between the happy, well adjusted vs. the unhappy, poorly adjusted,
is not that one type is selfless with a positive attitude, while the other type is
selfish with a poor attitude.

I believe it has more to do with body/brain chemistry. Type 1 is blessed with an optimum healthful balance of neurotransmitters, and other important body substances. Type 2 has the misfortune of having their brain/body chemistry seriously out of whack, just as a diabetic's production of insulin is out of whack.

Some may have a genetic predisposition to such bodily deficiencies,they were "born that way".
Others may have suffered early life trauma, which not only altered their psychology, but
permanently altered their brain chemistry as well, to their detriment.

We need to consider that addicts are not self indulgent and irresponsible by nature. They may often simply be unhappy folks with chemical deficiencies they are attempting to remedy.
Whether they are successful at doing so or not, they may just be trying to feel mentally healthy and happy, like NORMAL folks.

'Fraid the Bushies and the DEA have explained to Mexican Pres. Vincente Fox who it is that REALLY runs things in here in North America:
Fox just announced he will not sign into law the new bill legalizing drug possession!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_decriminalizing_drugs;_ylt=ApRjjYCaOKaPO28b.IDgZ

Bobb999
Addiction isn't about selfishy seeking kicks, it is about something entirely different.
I am a recovering addict and I know thousands of addicts in and out of recovery.
Does that mean I am an authority on the issue, of course not.
In spite of what you believe, addiction is steeped in totally obsessive and compulsive behaviour which is absolutley and totally self centered, it is the core of the disease.
As for being hung out to dry once the NAOMI project is over, what would you expect. They knew they only had funding for a set time period yet they give the addict as much heroin every day for the duration of the program and then knowing full well there was no new funding in place had no plan to wean the down or encourage recovery.
Like all the other useless programs down there it is all about the junkie industry and the junkies are merely pawns in the grand scheme of things.
Kind of funny we never hear of any new and exciting programs down there that would really give addicts a chance to recover, it's all about programs to give out drugs and places to use them. Hopefully someone will one day see the lunacy of it all and a more rational approach will come about with some sembalance of something other than a one pillar program.

I, too am a recovering drug addict. I have been watching the postings here and elsewhere for sometime. Mixed in with the rantings and ravings of those who express a somehow god given understanding of the problem, are real insights from those who in fact share their experiences and beliefs upon what must be done to help the current addicts as well as what must be done to prevent future menbers of our society from going down this same path of desruction. I have seen and read enough to understand that those in recovery seem to have been given the gift of seeing the addiction problems for what they are and have the ability to cut through the rehteric and produce some real and useful solutions. Once again though, the real problem is the government who refuses to listen to those who actually know. I recently heard Shirley Bond (Minister of Education) refer to addicts in recovery as cured of their addictions. If our leaders can't get it that they need to talk to those with experience and first hand knowledge, they are no better than those on this site who bicker amongst themselves over tidbits of missinformation and flawed ideology. Without willingness to learn there can be no advancement. While in my active addiction i worked in the drug trade at a high level of the drug organization. The attitude of the higher ups is that as long as our leaders continue to make up their own minds about what society needs to help the addict the future for huge drug related profits can only get better. This (amungst other truthes) is why it is accurate to say that our government is the best partner that the drug industry has ever had. I chose to clean up my hand because I have a young son and he needs his father. i'm sure that you understand how difficult it is to go from having unlimited funds due to drug money to living on a disabled persons pension. I am truly tempted to allow the governments deliberate attempt to force me back to "work" to succeed. Without proper supports, any sort of treatment is destined to fail.

You've posted some excellent links, G. West. I guess the Mexican president isn't going to be able to withstand the pressure from the Bush administration, afterall. And maybe it wouldn't matter who was in the white house. The Americans are positively obsessed with contining this hopeless and brutal war on drugs.

Realist, it's easy to come on here and criticize everybody for bickering. We're bickering because we all have different opinions and life experience. What might seem obviously true to me might seem absolutely stupid to someone else.

And I think you already know that.

As far as your opinion that the addict is somehow an expert, I beg to differ. In my opinion the addict may be the worst person to believe--unless they have huge insight into what's going on in their lives.

If this was the case they probably would never have become drug addicts.

Truman,
I would never question your knowledge and expertise in matters pretaining to AIDS/HIV. On the other hand you know very little about why poeple become addicts etc.
I will agree with your statment that "the addict may be the worst person to believe", IF they are in active addiction. I have addict friends who are doctors and lawyers etc. and many people seek them out for advice on a daily basis.
Your "once an addict, always an addict" attitude is what it is, an opinion based on ols school rhetoric, at best.

Barryjo, thank you very much. I agree with everything you've posted 100%. I don't think my cousin would qualify for any free drugs since she doesn't have a fixed address. What is she going to tell them ... she lives on a bench in Central Park or in a stairwell or under a bridge???? Even if she did qualify, she still has to eat, buy clothes and maybe even find a real place to live. How is she going to pay for that? The only way she knows how to these days ... by prostituting herself. I can't speak for other addicts but I know my cousin very well. Methadone wasn't enough for her (or at least the dosage provided to her) so she was still buying heroin and crack while on a methodone program. There is no way she would stand for even an hour of pain if she was made to wait for drugs. She's told me that herself. She, and others like her, need treatment and counselling to help them rebuild their lives. As a teacher, I try to be proactive rather than reactive. I wish the government would do the same.

Bobb999,

I found your comments directed to me rather insulting. I'm typing faster now so please forgive any typos lol.

As I said above, if my cousin is provided with drugs then she still has other expenses in order to live. She quit school at 16 when she went to live on the streets. What type of job do you think she could get after 11 years on the streets as a hardcore addict??????

I am certainly NOT prejudiced towards addicts or anyone else, unless you consider an intolerance for stupid people a prejudice (and I'm not including you as a stupid person so don't get your knickers in a knot). I have done nothing but love and support my cousin in every way that I can. I do try very hard to be a realist though because it hurts too much to be anything else. I know that she will never get clean unless she truly believes that is what she wants. I know that she will need counselling to help her to build her self-esteem. I know that she will need job skills. I know, without any doubt in my mind, that she is almost as addicted to life on the streets as she is to the drugs. Free drugs aren't going to help her do any of those things. Being a realist does not make me prejudiced. It makes me a survivor.

I hope that you never have to feel the pain of loving a drug addict living on the streets. You don't understand what it's like to be constantly worried about her ... to wonder if she is dead or alive ... to be willing to do anything just to keep her safe. If you did, then maybe you would understand and not be so critical.

Barryjo, the only problem with my "once an addict always an addict" comment is that I've never said it, nor do I believe it. I was one of the planet's most grotesque nicotine addicts for thirty years, now there's nothing that would make me inhale that stuff. I have absolutely no desire or interest in it. In fact when I see people smoking now I have a lot of trouble not thinking to myself: what an effing idiot!

The fact that you have addict friends who are doctors and lawyers tends to support my belief that it is poverty and constantly trying to hustle the loot for that next fix that creates all the havoc. I'm sure your doctor friends who are addicted don't hang around Hastings and Columbia trying to figure out how they're going to get forty bucks for a fix.

They're just going about their business, making a living and contributing to society.

And I know exactly why people become addicted to heroin and cocaine.

Someone once called addicts "losers" on another thread and I think it was G. West who jumped down his throat. (I don't blame you G. West).

However, in a way, it is true. Addicts are people who have lost in the game of luck. Many of them have untreated and undiagnosed mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bi-polar illness; many have learning ddisabilities. My friend, Cory Horvat, about whom I wrote in the story, "Jason Loves Cory" for the Tyee, heard voices constantly telling her to do destructive things. The only way for her to get any peace from these hallucinations was to shoot up. She wore a back brace from a car accident in which her back was broken. She couldn't get comfortable and was in almost constant pain. In fact her whole life was about pain. She told me a story about her father shooting himself to death in front of her and her mother. I didn't know if I believed it or not until I met her mother. Every word of it was exactly as Cory told it to me.

In my wildest dreams I never imagined a human being could stand as much suffering as she did. Heroin was a blessing for her.

Post traumatic stress syndrome is very common among addicts.

Many long time addicts experienced unresolved sexual identity problems and were thrown out of the house for being of the wrong sexual orientatioin. (30% of homeless youth are homosexuals whose families disapproved and made life miserable for them) Many have been abused, sexually, emotionally or physically by a spouse, parent or sibling.

Many just never "fit in" at school and were among the kids who were were mocked and ridiculed.

And some just use heroin as a painkiller for acute pain caused by injury or accident.

This will sound weird, I know, but most chronic addicts are not suicidal at all. In fact they use consciousness-altering drugs so that they will be able to withstand all the pressures of living that most of the rest of us can withstand sober.

I talk to drug addicts. I talk to people. I've heard the stories. They're just people who have had the hell kicked out of them.

Whether we ever have prescriptions for chronic drug addicts or not, continuing to criminalize their behaviour is, in itself, a crime.

Drug addicts are just people who were not able to make in our competitive, judgemental society.

And one of the reasons I say that drug addicts might be among the most unreliable for advice on the subject: They are often very hurt, destroyed people and they don't want to admit how much pain they've suffered.

Mexico tried to stop the insanity. The Americans insist that it continues. Maybe Canada can do better.

Truman,
I rest my case based on what you have written, which is the classic, clinical version of why people become addicts.
You really have no idea what causes addiction and all your theories are pretty much the same as the professionals that are trying to figure it out.
Addicts in recovery aren't "hurt, destroyed people" and their advice pertaining to solutions would make a diffence.
Kind of funny the thousands of addicts who have been to Hell and back and are winning the war are never consulted or asked there opinions on any of possible solutions.
Professionals whose very limited knowledge which is mostly based on studies done by those with vested interests in keeping addicts addicted create the holy grail of addiction therapies and guess what, all they can come up with is that most addicts can't change so give them dope.
As long as the arm chair quarterbacks are running the show us players who are winning the game will have to sit on the sidelines. Sadly the game of life will end for many while we have to sit and watch. Some of us have started our own teams but without league backing(government)we can't compete with the harm reduction league, nor do we want to, we just want a level playing field.

So Barryjo, let's hear your opinion of why addicts become addicted. In detail, preferably. And especially why it differs from mine.

Truman,
Addiction is an illness most often caused by either a genetic predisposition or family dysfunction. There can be other causes but these are the most prevalent. There is a strong, direct corelation between family dysfunction, low self esteem and addiction. Marginalized populations, however, also have higher rates of addiction per capita due to low self esteem brought on by society and its negative views of them
You will rarely, if ever, find an addict who had good self esteem and got addicted. People with good self esteem that use drugs can stop when they run into consequences caused by their drug use. A person prone to addiction gets an artificial boost to their low self esteem and a false sense of well being from drug use and in spite of consequences from using drugs they will continue to use drugs to replicate the almost magical experience the drugs gives them and for a short while they feel they are equal to others and part of the human race in a world which would otherwise seem difficult, hostile and challenging to them.
Why some people get addicted and some don't is usually dependent on the effect the drugs have on the person using them and this is determined soley by self esteem and self worth.
Actually the drugs are just the most obvious symptom of a much larger problem which is most often characterized by a life skill deficency. Most addicts simply don't have the life skills to deal with life on lifes terms and drugs, in the beginning, seem to help them cope with life.
This probably all sounds off base and it is not in detail and I expect to hear a sharp rebuke but it is based not so much on my own personal experience but on years of working with addicts and going through family histories.
I did post my ph # (604) 529-1011 on here so you could call me some time ago, give me a call I will buy you lunch at the venue of your choice and we can discuss this in more detail.
To be fair, I think we are pretty close with our theories about the origins of addiction and I do apologize for my comments in regard to your writings on the subject, I have a hard time with anything I preceive as being of a clinical nature as I don't think that is where the answers are to be found.

Barryjo, clinical schminical. We're pretty well totally in agreement about the causes of addiction--except for that "genetic" stuff of yours. I'm speaking from experience too, although I've never used any illegal drugs, except the required puff or two of pot in l967 or so--which gave me a headache.

Personally, I despise the stuff, pot, heroin cocaine, tylenol 3's--you name it, I hate it.

But so what? I don't need it, thank god.

Your second last comment seemed very strange, Barryjo, because you said I didn't have a clue about why people get addicted to drugs, then you delivered a comment in which you totally agreed with me. I just went into a bit more detail, but don't you think you can find all of your reasons within my comments?--self-esteem, life-skills, inability to fit in etc.
These are exactly the kinds of things I was talking about.

"Difficulty coping with life," you say. Doesn't that ring a bell with what I said: "Drug addicts are just people who were not able to make it in our competitive, judgemental society."

I really don't understand this. On the one hand you claim I don't know anything about why people become addicted, then you all but list the same reasons as I do.

Any explanation?

There's nothing clinical about my opinions. I don't know a single professional person and have never consulted with one. I don't have any vested interest except speaking out about something I perceive as a huge injustice against marginalized people--and the memory of my friends dying for nothing and my sister being shot to death for three thousand dollars because she was naive enough to give information to the police about her drug dealing acquaintances.

Truman,
At the end of my post I did apologize for my comments as I believe our differences of opinions about solutions to the problem may have clouded my judgement in regards to your writings about causes.
I simply didn't take my time to read them carefully or I would have realized that although the wording was slightly different it was basically the same underlying content.

Truman Green:
Sorry it took so long to respond to your comment but, I have a life other than sitting in front of my computer. I usully refrain from returning comments to those who lack the ability to understand but, in your case I will make an exception as my comments seem to have cut you a liitle too close to the bone and thus you responded with your angry gibberish. An addict who has come into recovery very likely has done a great deal more soul searching and self discovery than you will ever experience due to your lack actually living your life. I leave you with a quote to ponder "Religion is for those who are afraid to go to hell but, sprituallity is for those who have already been there". When you have gained some insight into your own world through pain and greif, you will find that your so called knowledge that you express actually is the mask you wear to hide your fears of being a human being. Having a heart and having feelings will not kill you! Give it a try and maybe you too can grow as a person.

Realist, do have anything specific to add to the conversation? I humbly challenge anyone to read your last post, in which you recommend yourself as of superior knowledge due to your having actually participated as a drug addict--and declare that it is not at least as worthy of the description "gibberish" as my comments.

For example: "Religion is for those who are afraid to go to hell, but spirituality is for those who have already been there."

What's that got to do with this discussion--or me--or you--pray tell?

And what's your definition of "gibberish," anyway?

Truman,
Realist is probably fairly new to recovery, probably anywhere from 6 months to five years clean.
Everyday clean is a miracle, he is a miracle, allow him his rants and opinions.
Part of a good spiritual base is allowing others to have conflicting points of view and not judging others as he seems to be doing in your case. I too had judged you, mistakes are part of being human. I actually don't mind making them, it gives me an opportunity to apologize which goes a long way towards keeping me humble.
I do believe there is some validity to what Realist is saying, addicts who have recovered significantly do have a very good insight into why addicts get into addiction and the best path to recovery but their opinions are never sought, it's always some "professional" or politician who has the final say in the matter.
Well, it's six in the morning and I have to go to work, unless you've made other plans "have a good day"

it remains unfirtunate that an individual must resort to extreme measures to break into you closed discusion groups. thank-you for finally recognising my posts. I appologize for having to resort to such manipulation to gain access.

By the way I have six years clean and your accurate estimate at my clean time proves my point nicely. An addict has a unique understanding of the actions and behaviours of the other addicts. No single addict has the ability to find the solution but, together, if consulted, we would have a great deal of valuable knowledge to add to the discussion. My vitriolic anger towards Truman G. is spurn out of the frustration of repeatedly seeing discions made by individuals who lack actual knowledge and insight into the drug problem, and the accepted practice of following these theories instead of actually solving problems

Okay Realist, then tell us some stuff then. Why do people become addicted, for instance? Both Barryjo and I gave it a shot. Your turn, wouldn't you think. Here's your big chance. Who knows who's reading. I wouldn't doubt that Sam Sullivan's having a look.

Go for it. What's addiction all about?

Addiction is a problem with living. The pressure of life be they caused by poverty, sexual abuse or any other means, results in a group of people who resort to mood altering to avoid having to deal with their feelings. Addicts seem to lack the coping skills many either inheritantly have or develope in their childhood through experience or direct teachings. Arguements about whether addictions are inherited or nurtured should be left to scientists to answer. You do not need to know what caused a problem to fix the problem.The result is an individual that lacks the self esteem to face life without hiding in the haze of addictions. The fear of feeling anything is so strong that the addict resorts to activities that blunt their ability to feel anything but the desire to stay hazed. Defining what an addict is is easy. The difficulty comes when people who lack this basic knowledge start to inflict their beliefs on society in their uninformed attempt to rectify the problem. Twelve step groups have proven over and over that through support and education an individual can develope the skills to cope with the pressures of life. This is done through the simple teachings of the twelve steps whic educate the addict to switch their focus from themselves to others for the betterment of his/her fellow man. Selflessness is the answer. This is why neoliberalism/ neoconservatism is so dangerous to our society as it teaches people to love only money before their fellow human being but, this is off topic.
Then there is the twofold problems as to how to convert those already addicted into productive human beings and also how to stop society's drive towards the responsibility of life being on individuals shoulders (causing dienfranchisement and deviant behaviours such as addictions) and back to the concept of it takes an entire community to raise a child.

Now that's more like it, Realist. But do you mind if I claim that all of your addiction-causative factors can be found in my analysis--and in Barryjo's too--problems with coping, resorting to, in my words, "consciousness altering drugs" etc.

So if we agree, how come you claim I don't know anything about it? Syllogistically speaking that would impugn your own credibility, you know. (a=b, b=c, therefore c=a), with "a" being Truman, "b" being Barryjo, and "c" being Realist.

You can't claim that any of these values equals zero, (apparently me) without rendering the same value upon the others.

See what I mean? One would have to conclude, logically, that all three of us has a pretty good idea of what's going on. Or that we're all "blocks, stones, worse than senseless things." I made that up. Honestly!

But anyways, good on you.

And oh yeah, you're both getting an "F" for plagiarizing my ideas.

Truman,
I'll give you an A and a feather in the cap for the theories on addiction and you can claim ownership, after all, the cause or problem is not near as important as the solution and that is where we have most of our differences of opinion.
Granted one can't find solutions unless we know what caused the problem and if all the politicians, professionals and others (including us addicts in recovery) could put our egos aside and sit down and be openminded to finding common ground on which to put a comprehensive plan in place to deal with addiction, much could be accomplished.
Dare to dream Truman, dare to dream!

Marullus, : You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things.
(Act 1, scene 1, Julius Caesar)

Truman,
Plagiarizing were we, there was once a story about a pot callin a kettle.....
Hmmm

Okay, G. West, a BA ain't worth much, but I have one in English literature. I wuz only kidding. I know where it came from.

And Barryjo, that's pretty funny especially since I actually am black. heh heh.

LOL- never doubted that you did my man

So as the obligitory "newbie" - in the sense of commentary - adding anything to the intensely personal and fully realized nature of this conversation feels intrusive. I'm gonna do it anyway, as apparently the only person willing to admit to the addiction that drives most of us, unaware, into so many of our actions. It took lifelong addiction patterns and an oddly broad education to put it together, but the real chemical at the bottom of almost all social problems is simply adrenaline.

No, wait, think about it. Positive adrenaline addictions (adrenaline + social stability - inherent or created) is patterned in sports, business, art...everywhere. Negative adrenaline addictions - add social instability such as poverty, abuse, mental illness, the whole mulligatawny soup of the world as we know it - you have your drug addicts, your alcoholics, family abusers and hey, maybe even war. An endless run on sentence of ills.

Not that I have any claim to an answer. For me, it came down to recovering from adrenaline by the new unpatented "me and Bhudda under a lot of trees" method. I don't know what it is for the rest of the world.

The problem I always had with the Buddha was how easily he accepted the idea that suffering is the only possibility for those who live a normal life and that following the 8-fold path was the only route to enlightenment and happiness.

I think this gives up on normal life too easily. It's certainly not possible to be happy all of the time, nor is that a reasonable goal, but one can still be pretty happy at least some of the time without withdrawing from society into a life of meditation and contemplation.

Anyway, whatever works for you.

Considerthis, Considerthis: I've been studying the relationship between cortisol and epinephrine inspired immunosuppression as a possible co-factor in Aids today and I come back here and you're writing about adrenaline addiction. Is this serendipitous or what, eh!

Adrenaline (epinephrine) does all kinds of unbelievable things to prepare us for flight or fight: increases heartbeat and blood pressure, gets more blood from the skin and guts and hustles it off to the muscles, (guess why)and the brain (ditto); reduces clotting time. (in case we're injured) and increases our metabolic rates; dilates pupils (brings in more light).

See why I believe in intelligent design even though I'm as close to an atheist as you can get.

Too much of a good thing makes us more susceptible to all kinds of infections and produces non-specific antibodies, probably picked up by Elisa and Western Blot antibody tests and registered as reactive to HIV.

The mystics all tell us that when sychronicity like this occurs we're probably on a positive learning curve. Thanks, eh.

Yes, Barryjo, it is possible for non-vested- interested people to work out a solution to this problem. Most societal problems can be resolved if the intransigence of those who depend on them for their financial well-being can be overcome.

Harm reduction and treatment centres, and employment programs like yours certainly won't harm the situation, and those addicts lucky enough to participate will probably benefit to some degree. But this problem will continue until the mythology and self-interest recedes into the background.

The first step has to be recognizing that our laws have for several decades criminalized the drug addict, for no other reason than that it was decided seven or eighty years ago that people who use the wrong kind of painkillers and mood-altering substances should henceforth be thought of as criminals. This was totally arbitrary. There never was a sensible rationale for it.

Nothing significant will ever happen until this travesty is ended.

The Mexican senate voted 42 to 2l to pass new legislation which would decriminalized the possession of small amounts of all the illicit drugs in order to begin to claim the country from the drug cartels, bribers, killers and kidnappers who turn their funds into marketing some of the world's most obscenely overpriced products: heroin and cocaine. As Milton Friedman has been saying for many years, it's a completely phony market.

Mexican president, Vincente Fox (thanks G. West) couldn't withstand the intimidation of the American government and has vowed not to sign the the bill, under who knows what kind of threat, possibly even personal, but most likely as economic harm to his nation.

This is what happens when common sense and decency is overcome by the stupidity of mythmakers and the psychopathology of the profit-takers.

You can call it just plain evil.

Truman,
Therein lies our difference of opinion, you have no idea what would happen if drugs were made legal, yet you advocate the strategy. Every case I have found in rcorded history where drugs were legalized, addiction rates skyrocketed. Give me a call, we'll hook up, I can show you many examples.
You think it is a coincidence that 80 percent of the budget that deals with problems associated with drug use goes toward two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. That was a stat in the paper last week.
Why is that? It is because when a drug becomes legal it makes its use more mainstream, normalizes it if you will. Impressionable kids start to see it as not so bad or evil, after all it is legal.
It's not rocket science, its just the way. Society has to have laws etc. and these help shape childrens sense of right and wrong and assist them as they develop a moral compass.
It's a fact if something become legal it is viewed in a different light.
Sams approach is not only very irresponsible it undermines everything those in favour of or against the four pillar approach have worked towards.

The addictions are symptoms of a sick society. The only way that this issue will be resolved is to change society back to co-oporation verses competition. See, even the solution has been changed into a fight. Root problems can never be fixed in the branches

spedteacher:
I'm sure it's difficult for you watching your cousin's plight of being a long term street addict, and your feeling helpless to change her life.
I don't envy her.
I was responding to a few statements you made that I could see little rationale for:
-That even if addicts received free drugs, crime rates would not go down.
-That you appeared to suggest that, even with free drugs, addicts could not or would not become productive members of society.

If your relative ever got into a drug maintenance program, you might be happily surprised to find her life starting to actually turn around, to some degree, at least. It's possible.

******************************

Truman's mention of cortisol and adrenaline,
makes we wonder if people with a predilection for opiates, might be self-medicating, not only to redress a possible deficiency in endorphins
(the body's natural opioids). Perhaps the anxiety reducing properties of opiates also inhibit overproduction of cortisol and adrenaline (both associated with stress).

Some who find relief from opiate use may be also be adjusting a body chemistry which responds inappropriately to normal life situations (social, work, etc.)by producing stress chemicals when there is no real "threat" to justify it (this assumes adrenaline doesn't necessarily always produce a desirable feel-good effect, as someone posited earlier). Imagine having to live life where a kind of "fight or flight" response is experienced every day, in the course of normal human interactions!
I believe it's possible that some junkies have fairly sound idiosynchcratic biochemical justifications for using opiates as a "health supplement", so to speak.

*********************************

If only opiate addicts would simply switch to poppy (ie. opium)tea,they would still be able to enjoy "ye olde junk effect", to their potential benefit, for a cost per day of less than that of a Starbuck's Latte habit. They would no longer need to steal, turn tricks, or "doctor shop" for prescriptions, and instead could be well adjusted,contributing members of society.
They would not be subject to arrest. As gardeners everywhere know, one can grow poppies
with impunity. Virtually all medium or large pod size varieties, the seeds of which are typically sold in gardening supply shops,
are forms of opium poppy (the popular small pod size California Poppy is an exception.They don't contain the desired opium alkaloids).
Even supermarket sold grocery poppy seeds are almost certainly opium poppies.

If one makes tea from ground pods, stalks or leaves, boiling down the tea produces the sticky dark brown/nearly black opium gum (illegal!). But if one does not go that extra step, and simply imbibes tea, I have never heard of anyone in Canada being arrested for poppy tea.

Special thanks should go to John McCrae, Canadian author of "In Flanders Fields". He elevated the poppy to iconic status, far above the easy grasp of the "war on drugs" police and proponents!

Actually if you applied Sams idea around addiction solutions to a situation where you had many in wheelchairs but were unable to walk and give them only wheelchairs and no therapy or other support, in spite of the fact many were only temporarily disabled, you have a same case scenario.

Bob999,
When I was addicted I lived in Kamloops for a couple of years and we would wait for poppies to mature, then at night we would go out with garbage bages and steal them and for a short period we would have bags of poppies and make poppy tea. You just put little slits in the bulbs, dump them in the water and steep away.
We were still very addicted and did everything junkies do in their addiction, we were a drain on society and we broke the law.
It isn't about the drugs, although they are the most obvious part of the problem, they are really just a symptom. Unless and addict can change their perceptions, and it can only be done by abstinence, they are self seeking and self centered to the core, addiction makes people that way, nothing else matters and you can give them everything they want and its still not good enough.

Yes, Bobb99 there is a relationship between drug addiction and attempts to reduce stress. In fact I think it's fairly obvious that addicts are self-medicating for this reason.

I've also uncovered tons of research which very strongly suggests that cortisol and adrenaline are cofactors for immunosuppression and developement all kinds of illnesses.

The Aidists never mention it, but if you google such terms as cortisol-immunosuppression or adrenaline-epinephrine-immunosuppresion it will lead you to such studies. If this intrigues any of you, you can start by looking at the studies at Ohio State University under Comprehensive Cancer Studies and immunosuppression.

In fact a brand new study was completed yesterday which hasn't hit the web yet. They used hepatitis A vaccines administered to college students in two groups--one group which was determined to be under low stress and another which was under high stress, as well as a placebo-based control group. The group under high stress produced very significantly higher rates of antibody to hepatitis-specific antigens.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that stress will eventually be shown to be the causal relationship between antibody production and reactions to all the supposed hiv antigens--which will call into question what has become obvious to me: Hiv antibody testing is a farce.

Is it any wonder that blacks, homosexuals and injection drug users are now admitted to being the only groups still at risk for acquired immunosuppression?

In fact, this theory is completely testable by clinical trial: epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol correlation with the reaction of antibody to hiv antigens. Of course, the research czars will never fund it because it might tend to dampen their corrupt hiv/aids hypothesis. All the proteins are easily identified, antigens, immunoglobins (antibodies), cortisol and adrenaline. Supposed "core" p24 hiv antigen would be an excellent place to start.

barryjo:

In keeping with the "confessional" spirit on this thread, (and if my prior post hasn't already "outed" me):

I have been an opium tea habitue for 6 years.

My experience as an addict is contrary to yours.
I view my use of poppy tea as a "health supplement",in much the same way as I use SAMe and 5HTP, two over the counter supplements that balance neurotransmitter levels.

I don't break the law. I don't victimize others.I don't steal, coerce, or lie to maintain myself.
When I (not infrequently)see poppies growing in peoples' yards (it's amazing how common they are), I don't earmark them for future moonlight thievery! I consider myself an honest, ethical person. who has grown more compassionate with time, not less.

The dosage I take has only very gradually risen over the first 2 years or so, but has since levelled off, plateaued. I've found a dose I'm content to stick with (I've read that tea drinkers like me are less likely than opium smokers or heroin users, to need to continue upping the dose).

I take measures to ensure I always have access to legally acquired poppies, 365 days a year.
I never need worry about running out of supply.

Friends who have known me both before and after
my habit, have said I seem more focussed mentally and emotionally now than previously.
I agree with their assessment, and would add my memory is better, I'm less anxious, more compassionate. I am also better able to carry out regular spiritual practise now. I daily practise a form of Taoist yoga.
I almost never take extra, sufficient to put me "on the nod". I generally dislike the "nod" state. I prefer being alert. I don't use opium for "escape".

Opiates are not incompatible, necessarily with spiritual practise. Some Sadhu's (a type of Hindu monk)in India use opium, henbane or cannabis as meditation aids. Poppies were sacred to a number of Greek gods and goddesses.
A Poppy Goddess religion existed in Crete.

Despite being a "junkie" I've also been more successful than ever financially the last 3 years, since I began trading stocks for a living, independently (no law breaking required!)This requires mental focus. You can't be on the nod!

I believe addiction is not in and of itself, necessarily either good or bad or self centered It depends partly on the substance, and whether
it's expensive/illegal or not. Addiction to some of our legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol, is physically damaging. For myself, I put opium tea in about the same category as green tea. They are both addictive but beneficial for me, not damaging. Just as with green tea (or coffee) addicts, I have a habit that is compatible with living an ethical, compassionate,productive existence, which is what I try to live!

Truman: I believe I had heard of the role of cortisol in immuno suppression via Dr.Deepak Chopra.
He was proposing that meditation can reduce stress and reduce production of stress related chemicals
implicated in increased disease risk.

I hadn't thought specifically about HIV-AIDS and the role of such chemicals, but what you say makes sense, despite the mainstream's not paying attention to this aspect.

Bobb999, that was totally fascinating to me, and I'm sure educational and instructive to everyone. I'm not advocating anything, and I'm sure you're not either, but it's clear that these so-called "evil" substances can be used in a constructive way by an enlightened person.

At last, experience and research coincide.

Now to take this back to the initial thread - Sammy's Psychedelic Bus - there is also some evidence to be had for the treatment of negative adrenaline addiction with simple THC, as well. To live in a state of constant response is a more common occurrence than ever suspected. The very action of untreated addiction will produce this, as will poverty, abuse, disease, mental illness....I'm getting repetitive.

It's clear that there are links between cortisol/adrenaline reactions and behaviour patterns. Consider the abusive relationship. The abuser experiences adrenaline as a power over the abused. The abused finds that severing the relationship with the abuser leaves an empty ennui that is equated with love, but is primarily the withdrawl from a constant adrenaline input of thier own.

Adrenaline also has it's positives, as clearly delineated by Truman; the two sides of the story, so to speak. And thus my belief that intelligent design was on a coffee break.

But back to the original idea. To treat the symptoms of adrenaline on society. Addiction at it's core is always an escape from a situation that stresses, and stress is adrenaline's green light. Or vice versa. I have, over the years, noticed that adrenaline and THC rarely co-habitate, being the chemical odd couple. Despite the bad reputation of depressants as a whole - and opiates too, for that matter - isn't there some reason for research in this area? Well? Get on with it, you guys. You're all tremendously brilliant. I'll just wait here.

Really, I guess I'm saying Sir Sullivan is on a track that makes some sense. To minimize adrenaline and cortisol reactions, to maximize efficient autoimmune response (whether compromised or not), to treat a bodily response that is as inefficient as the pain response, there is a necessity to change a whole society. We've not devised a way we can live together without adrenaline, or a place placid enough to do it, but by gum we're ready to meddle with our environment, and the worst environment we've got right now is the one that is feeding meth to our kids. So how much of our negative reaction to treating the addiction with the drug is the firm belief that "different" and "wrong" are the same thing?

Clearly, humans have treated the overproduction of adrenaline with naturally occuring drugs for thousands of years. It is also clear that the drugs believed to have the worst effects are the processed or man made drugs. Perhaps the answer is to legalize naturally occuring opiates for treatment, and to increase the penalties for producing drugs like meth.

Bobb999,
You are a drug user and clearly not an addict. Some folks can use substances to change the way they feel with no problems i.e. recreational users. Addicts don't have the capacity to do that and not use ever, increasing doses.
Whether adrenaline or whatever causes the stress in ones life that is the cause of addictive behaviour is an interesting concept but even if that is the cause the addict can and many do learn coping skills to deal with real life situations without the use of drugs.

Bobb999.

I know from experience that there are hardcore heroin addicts who can get clean and lead normal and productive lives. My aunt (mother of my cousin) was a heroin addict in the 70s. She got involved in the Seattle music scene back then. She partied with Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and died of Hep C last April as a result of that lifestyle. But she was able to get clean and live a life where no one (other than family) knew about her past until the Hep C was diagnosed. She was a phenomenal example to me and her experiences helped me to say no to drugs when pressured at parties many times. Unfortunately, my cousin (who was born after my aunt got clean and living a "normal" life) was not able to learn from her example.

My cousin's lifestyle always confused my aunt. My aunt never allowed herself to get so low that she had to sleep outside. My aunt committed crimes to get her drugs, buy food and shelter. My cousin prostitutes herself (and why any man would pay money for someone with open sores all over them is beyond me!!!!) to buy drugs ... period. I think it's the effects of the Me generation of today or something. My cousin, for one, chooses to take what she considers to be the easy way. Free drugs won't get her off the streets and if she remains on the streets what sort of job is she going to be able to get to pay for food and shelter? The free drugs aren't going to help her to build her self-esteem after years of emotional abuse. She needs counselling and treatment to help her to learn to live a "normal" life. Free drugs will just keep her on the streets and possibly kill her.

Barryjo, are you sure it's intellectually tenable to take Bobb999 off the level playing field because he's obviously a thoughtful and sensible person. He described himself as an "opium tea habitue" and said: "My experience as an addict is contrary to yours."

Now you say: "You are a drug user and clearly not an addict." This arbitrary redefining of terms allows you the delusion of rationale for continiing your support of criminalization, but it is pure denialism at its best--I mean worst.

So this is how you get around the issue of his sensible and responsible use of illegal substances--by creating a special category for him--"a drug user and not an addict."

Actually, Barryjo, that is extremely hilarious. And what would you call a guy living around the corner from Columbia and Hastings who only needed one fix a day but wasn't able to convince the Vancouver cops' Olympic clean-up crew that he warranted extra respect and admiration?

Not convincing, Barryjo, and I'm a bit surprised that you'd use such a feeble rationalization.

Bobb999 is a criminal under our law, and he realizes it. The point I'm making--as if you didn't know--is: should he really be considered as such? I think not.

But you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a HUGE difference between someone who uses drugs as Bobb999 does and those who are drug addicts living on the streets. As an example, I know someone who has been smoking pot for over 20 yrs. He has gone to university, holds a very good job, and lives what others would consider a respectable life. Other than the pot, he doesn't commit any crimes (ok maybe speeds once in a while lol). My cousin is a completely different story.

No, spedteacher, I am not comparing apples and oranges.

A judge faced with a competent prosecution would be forced to convict Bobb999 under the criminal code for possession of an illegal substance.

Your cousin is guilty of an offence regardless of how responsible he is.

If he has some kind of human right to be considered worthy of respect and consideration so too does the half-dead sex worker on Hastings Steet. Have you ever heard of the concept of egalitarianism?

Maybe we should just keep the nice, reputable drug addicts criminalized and show admiration and leniency for the less presentable.

And this would be your idea of the democratic and eqalitarian application of the law?

So, sped, you're advocating a kind of multi-tiered application of the criminal code, depending on how much a suspect has been able to clean him or herself up.

This is what the entire human race has been struggling against since the middle ages, when the lord of the manor could just have you put in stocks because he didn't like your looks and the prince could have you put into a little cage suspended from the tower of London if he felt offended by the fact that you were alive--or he wasn't having a particularly nice day.

Equal rights under the law might seem trite to you, but I kinda like it.

Truman,
If one can use drugs and not get addicted they are not an addict, some people can use recreationally or socially and some can't.
What part of that statement is so hard for you to fathom.
What is really hilarious is that I have been debating thi stuff with you, forever it seems, and you can't even wrap your brain around the concept of addiction and what it is.
All the theories you guys hypothesis about on here, which tend to make you look fairly intellectual means nothing as you simply can't grasp the very fundamentals of addiction.
As for Bobb999, hope he never runs out of poppies, going through poppy tea withdrawl was one of the worst I ever went through. As well, he states his friends say he is more emotionally focused now that he is wired to poppy tea, that would be a first and I knew a lot of people who drank it and quite frankly, I have never known anyone to be more emotionally focused when under the influence of drugs.
Actually, I just re-read his post and I think he is either in denial or he is full of it. He would have either got addicted after six years in which case he would have had to take ever increasing amounts to ward off sickness or he would have simply quit as he would have built up a tolerance and unless he took more would feel nothing and he would have quit. What would be the point if your tolerance wouldn't allow you to feel the effects of the drug. If I am wrong he is a one in a million type guy, the extreme exception to the norm.

Bottom line, drug addiction ruins millions of lives and creates a drain on society, so drugs are illegal and why we ask? As we know when a drug is legal, like alcohol or tobacco, it is much more widely used and costs society dearly.
You guys can debate this till the cows come home but the reality is they won't legalize drugs in this country, thank God.
And addiction has been around forever and will be forever so get used to it. The only solution to a problem caused by something is to remove the source of the problem, in this case the drugs.
The question was "do you think Sams one pillar plan is good or not?" The answer is obvious to most, even the "harm reduction" proponents.
Sam is on a Sam mission, he craves publicity so he will say things to get attention. I have a little more insight than most into Sam, my niece was his personal secretary when he worked for the Canadian Parapalegic Society and I could tell you some stories about Sam, let me tell you.

Barryjo, I know you're not serious about that. So the judge is going to ask the prosecution to prove that the suspect is addicted to the gram of coke that was found in his jacket pocket. Not!

And the defense attorney is going to use the defense (for possession): "Well, your honour, my client isn't addicted, eh, so I guess you'll have to let him go."

We're talking about whether the possession of heroin and cocaine and other drugs should be decriminalized here, eh.

Go get a little red criminal code book and show me where it says anything about non-addiction being a viable defense for the possession of illegal substances.

I bet your addicted lawyer friends wouldn't try that stunt, except as a little joke with a judge, eh. And I admit it would be pretty funny--and might actually get the judge's favour, but only for a few seconds, eh.

You're kidding---right?

And Bobb999 really doesn't know anything about his habit, eh. But you do--now that you've had a chance to think about it, he's not so enlightened afterall.

Barry, barry barry, surely you do jest.

Bobb999's the expert on his life, not you.

The real reason you're backtracking is because you realize that your comment: "You are a drug user and not a drug addict," doesn't quite cut it as a tenable debating position.

As a matter of fact, Barryjo, you are a complete idio..uh I mean idiosyncratic debater.

Truman,
Stick to AIDS/HIV issues, you really don't have clue about this issue.
If you can't figure out that some people can use drugs and not get addicted and some do, therefore, some use drugs bur aren't drug addicts then what is the point, even the basix premise of addiction eludes you.
As fo Bobb999, do you know how many times people have told me basically the same story to later recant and tell me there were in denial.
I'm done, this is getting ridiculous, I get angry at myself for getting trapped into this waste of time, going nowhere debate with you. If you had researched and knew half as much about addiction as you have about AIDS etc. we wouldn't be having this dumb debate.
Thank God your insane ideas and theories will never come to fruition, just too bizarre for a civilized world.

On the C.B.C. this morning I heard a comedian state that in London, England it now cost ten dollars an hour to park your car at a meter. This means that a kid working at McDonalds can now look out his window and see a meter making more money per hour than he does. In a society such as this can it be any wonder that people turn to mood altering to avoid feeling what society has become? What are we doing???

Oh boy. As this degenerates into ad hominm attacks, it starts to look like our little addiction to arguments is raising it's ugly head.

Alright, Barryjo, let's talk about experience with addiction. After working on the Downtown Eastside for more than a few years, and knowing more than one addict, I've come to realize that some people are certainly more functional than others. That has nothing to do with the drug and everything to do with the person. Therefore your statement "I've never known anyone to be more emotionally focussed when under the influence of drugs" may well be true in your experience, but not in mine. The cookie cutter treatment won't work.

Each person has an individual experience with thier drug. Some will recover when the stresses of living as a criminal are removed. Some will recover with the aid of perscription medications and therapy. Some will recover with personal growth and opiates. The point is to make recovery an option by taking criminality away from the situation.

Some will never recover. This is also reality. The best we can do is make the effort. And by the way, I believe more people smoke pot than smoke cigarettes. Legality doesn't always make it more palatable.

Truman,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article that started this discussion was about giving free drugs to addicts, right? Giving those drugs to addicts certainly isn't going to make heroin legal in BC. I meant that comparing someone like my cousin (a she and one of those half-dead workers on Hastings St. if it matters) and Bobb999 and their level of drug use is like comparing apples and oranges. The free drug program is intended more for the homeless addicts than it is for people like Bobb999, correct? We have to get those streets ready for the 2010 Olympics after all and that's all what this is really about. If it was to really help the addicts then there would be more treatment programs available.

I'm just trying to stay on topic as opposed to resulting to personal insults (aka idiot) when someone disagrees with me. Now, if you could give me some advice as to how to find my cousin when I go to Vancouver this summer and then you show me a treatment centre that I can afford that doesn't have a waiting list of 2 yrs. and could help her get off the drugs and the streets (if she's ready) then maybe you'd really be helping to find a solution to this problem. Using a bandaid by providing free drugs is NOT a long-term solution. Proactive solutions help in the long-term not reactive.

spedteacher:
I'm glad you acknowledge that heroin addicts aren'y precluded from ever becoming productive citizens again. I know your cousin appears to you to be a less hopeful case. I say there's usually a glimmer of hope.

******************************

As Truman was, I too was surprised by barryjo's assertion that I am user, not an addict!
The one time I went without for longer than 36 hours (about 5.5 years ago). I didn't run out of poppies, I just wondered what would happen to me. I had abdominal cramps like never before. Withdrawal makes you painfully aware of muscles you're not normally aware of, the peristaltic muscles that move food through your intestines! And that was just early stages - I took some more tea - and have never been curious to revist withdrawal! There's no doubt I'm physically addicted.

I too resent barryjo's new know it all stance, calling me in denial, a liar, or one in a million.

It sounds, barryjo, that you were taking every kind of opiate you could get your hands on, poppy tea being just one form. Is it possible for you to contemplate for a moment that some forms may be more likely to demand ever increasing doses than others, and others less so, (at least for some folks)? If you were taking heroin or strong prescription synthetics, those are more likely to provoke ever increasing demand.

The guy who wrote the definitive book on do-it-yourself opium, Jim Hogshire ("Opium for the Masses")is himself a habitue (though he doesn't admit as much in his book. Some internet sources reveal it.). He writes: "although a user's needs will invariably climb at first, eventually a standard dose will establish itself". I found this to be true in my own case.

This too from life long opium smoker and author,filmmaker,painter Jean Cocteau (from his "Opium"): "I never exceeded 10 pipes". And: "one of the riddles of opium is the smoker never has to increase his dose".

...2 more deniers, liars,or ones-in-a-million?

I suspect laudanum (concentrated opium liquified by dissolving in alcohol) is more likely to drive users to higher and higher doses, as was the case with Coleridge, DeQuincey (at times), and Wilkie Collins, for instance.

On the illegality: technically, Truman, you are correct in saying I'm breaking the law, because the law does mention possession of poppies as being illegal. But in practical application, I do not believe there are any modern cases of Canadians being charged for garden poppies, dried poppies, or tea. I do not manufacture opium itself (though I have done, and could easily do again so by boiling down tea).
If I'm breaking the law, so is my aunt growing poppies in her garden!

I've been enjoying this thread.
Have a good night, all.

Of course free drugs aren't the end all be all of treatment. They're one limb on the overall body. But your cousin (and of course she matters, at least to me) would likely be easier to find if she was accessing her drugs at a facility and not a back alley. She'd maybe find it easier to seek help if she didn't have to find johns. We'd maybe have more dollars for funding if we took it away from pointless litigation of people too screwed up to benefit (ha) from our overstuffed prisons and understaffed courts. So right there we've made it a little easier to help her. It's not like she's got anything to lose, right now, and she may have everything to gain.

It's so very difficult to see addiction as something that can be helped when you're in it. It's difficult for family to believe in recovery. It's hard to admit it may take a drug to treat a drug. There are some newer programs that allow hard core drug users to reduce dependency by using pot during the withdrawl process - in other words, kinda like a smoker might use a patch. But no matter what, treating the addict as a criminal is not the answer. Taking the power away from the gangs is - and to do that, you have to take the criminal aspect away from the product, drugs.

considerthis:
I hadn't read your last 2 posts till now, but I trust your unique 1st hand downtown eastside experience and insight suggesting addicts respond in myriad ways to their drugs, treatments, recovery, life in gen'l, that you can't lump everyone together as cookie cutter addicts.

barryjo, on the other hand, chooses to appoint himself THE expert on addiction by way of his taking his own experience and projecting it onto the entire rest of the addicted world!
He's decided that he was utterly self centered as an addict, therefore all addicts are absolute narcissists...He and his drug buds were never emotionally focussed while on drugs, therefore no one ever is...For him, abstinence is the only answer, he's decided, therefore drug abstinence is the only answer for everyone!

I believe barryjo is the most rigid, obsessively self-referencing thinker I've happened upon in some time. It's breathtaking, really. I fear some of the personality issues of his old addicted days, are still with him, despite his new drug free state.

Bobb999,
I am no expert on addiction, if I was I would have a solution to the problem.
I have,however, completed over five hundred case studies of addicts over the last twelve years and after a few hundred there are some things that get real predictable, although we all have our various unique characteristics our behaviours are very, very predicatble when we us drugs.
I expect to have names and labels etc. put on me as a result of my opinions and I am really okay with that. I have posted my ph # on here a few posts back and I would love the opportunity to sit down with anyone of you and discuss the issues we are talking about on hear. Although I run a business full time, and work a second job working for a non profit twenty five hours a week working with at risk youth teaching them life skills and helping them find work and mentoring them as they start their journey into independent living I would find time to sit down and discuss issuses related to addiction and recovery as it has been a hands on twelve year research project for me.
I am not rigid at all, I do have some strong opinions and one is that addicts can recover as I have witnessed the miracle so many times and two, that I have been to too many funerals of people that I care about that had the capacity to change and choose to roll the dice and lost to addiction. And no, I don't believe all can acheive abstinence and for them we should have a limited, smaller scale harm reduction program like they do in Sweden.
If any of you who have a differing opinion want a free lunch at the eatery of your choice let me know.
My sense is no one will, computers have made a lot of folks authorities on subjects who would otherwise never be heard. What is it low self esteem or a lack of conviction for your opinions beyond the three feet surrounding your computer, I don't know.
I welcome the opportunity to hear your points of view personally. I am asked to speaks regularly at conferences ect., will be again later this month, have been on Global TV (Suzette Myer heard about my company and asked if she could profile it and I agreed only because I wanted to show that addicts from skidrow can and do recover and lead very good lives) and CKNW (discussing safe injection sites, NAOMI etc. I have traveled North America researching how addiction and recovery is affecting various different cities and more importantly what is working in term of recovery strategies.
No, I don't think I do have the solution or know more than anyone else but I stand behind my convictions and am willing to get off my arse from behind my computer to share them with others. Do you just talk the talk or do you walk thew walk? My sense is most of you talk a lot and maybe read a little but computers have miraculously turmed you into authorities on many issues and you might be right and I might be wrong on this issue but until you have put your time, heart and soul into these issues as long as I have, I doubt it.
I get up at 5 every morning because I am excited, today is the first day of the rest of my life and I want to enjoy it. I realize this little excercise in futility is wearing on my spirit, so I am going to check out of this debate for awhile. I must admit, it was interesting though.

Geoff:

How is it that you can make so much sense on this issue?

Where was this Geoff Meggs for three years at city hall? Why did we have to put up with the incompetent one instead?

What exactly did the Larry Campbell administration do for the four pllars anyway? They gave a little boost to one of them while ignorning the other three. Hardly an administration that can truly be critical of the current one's approach.

darcy
I can't help but think that the real key to this problem (and there may not be just one) is more a question of recognizing that:

as part of a provincial measure to balance the budget.

However effective the idea of providing a safe injection site has been (I think the current figures show that more than 500 overdose deaths have been prevented and some 75 addicts have moved into some kind of recovery program) it is clear that giving the residents of the DTES a place to shoot up and/or providing them with 'safe' heroin is just a tiny part of what is necessary.

Without massive public investment in the available affordable housing base for the 'residents' of the area - something that is also conspicuous for its absence from the mayor's so-called program - it's hard to imagine that a single pillar of the four will ever be anything more than a stick twisting in the wind.

The mayor, the premier, the prime minister and Mr. Emerson would be better to concentrate a little less of their enthusiasms and cash on the Olympics and the Gateway and a little more on the festering wound in East Vancouver. It is hardly as if it is a new problem.

Unfortunately, given the precedent of Expo 86, it is sadly probable that the wound will still be festering when we are ‘celebrating’ the 20th anniversary of the 2010 Olympics.

Barryjo;

Sorry to hear that the difference of opinion is driving you away. There is always the hope that one more voice or one more idea will move us forward, that the concept of brainstorming can improve our thinking instead of crystallizing it. It's the hope for gestalt.

My experiences with addiction are also long and personal, starting with living on the streets during, amazingly enough, Expo 86. I held the hand of close friends as they died, overdosed, before ambulances could arrive. I saw women begin to dissapear from the streets, not knowing about The Farm. Later, much later, I ran a cafe that sold high quality pot for low prices, less if you had an illness or addiction you were trying to recover from. I had no medical model to work with other than my own. I paid the price for all of it.

During these years I have always volunteered for social service agencies, in all areas. I saw similar experiences and heard similar stories from all areas of human suffering, and saw what was in common in these people and thier situations. I still work for social service agencies and will as long as I can. My opinions do not come from research (although I've done plenty) and I've only just discovered the online community, not having wanted a computer for more than writing for many years.

Despite all of this, I see that this forum, as provoking as it may be, is a sincere attempt to understand, define and help addicts. No one here has yet voiced my deepest fear, which is that society just doesn't care enough to pursue this; alternatively, I see a deep seated desire to address this issue and other social issues with seriousness. The fact that some people view the situation with less compassion than others is a necessary foil, as even the least of humans can sometimes present the best of solutions.

To get back to the thread of discussion, I do agree with G West...without having something to hold up the social net on all sides, no one gets saved. One action is not enough. If you're gonna walk blindly into the future, it's best to take your best white cane.

Without massive public investment in the available affordable housing base for the 'residents' of the are

Agreed, in essence, although one must be careful to recognize the slippery slope of dependency.

It doesn't do me any good to have a safe place to shoot up if, at the end of the day, I wind up sleeping on the streets surrounded by people shooting up.

A dry, warm place to sleep is -- in my view -- a fundamental human right. We can argue over what constitutes a "dry, warm place to sleep" (7,000 sq. ft. in Shaugnessy is considered a necessity by some) but then we're just arguing details.

COPE spent much time in office focusing on issues that it could do nothing about. In the end, they were unable to do much about issues about which they profess to care.

Here in Kelowna (I did leave Vancouver, eventually, after being arrested for running the cafe) there is an ongoing debate about a treatment house. Businessess argue that a treatment and recovery home should be removed from the community as a necessary separation from the drug. My argument has been that A) There is no place where drugs and alcohol are unobtainable and B) it's easy to say no to anything, even a cookie, when there's none of it around. To learn true recovery is to learn to live in a world surrounded by temptation.

The other argument against this facility is that it will not kick out a person in treatment for slipping. Should someone use, they are still permitted to continue in recovery. This is a much more realistic approach than zero tolerance treatment centres. After all, it took me a few tries to quit smoking - and no one wrote me off when I screwed up.

When socialism and capitalism collide, it is easy to see the esentially selfish nature of the capitalist - at least in dealing with social issues that may affect his/her bottom line. Here in Kelowna, we're seeing it. I can only hope that Vancouver is more intelligent.

Perhaps barryjo's take on addiction is coloured (looks ugly brownish) by his own and others' UGLY experiences. It's recovery that reveals BEAUTY to him, which is fine by me.

barryjo: I wonder if any of the case studies you looked at were of people like myself? I'm guessing they were not. I imagine there are plenty of people like me, who don't appear on any radar screens of drug researchers, because they are living normal and law abiding (rather than desperate) lives.

You initially made a post giving some credence to my personal experience as an addict. So I was taken aback, when you did a 180, deciding instead I must be in denial, or one-in-a- million, or a liar (talk about labelling - and insulting - people).

Perhaps it's that you decided I didn't fit your cookie cutter profile of the desperate, pathetic addict, therefore I should not be believed.

I don't question your addiction experience.
You say you were driven to ever higher doses. Perhaps this is because of the forms of opiates, the manner in which you used them, as well as your personality predilection. But you apparently find it unbelievable that others (like myself)could conceivably reach a plateau
in dosage, and stay there, as I have for 3+ years (My dosage did climb through the first 2 to 3 years of usage, then plateaued).

I would hope my citing of Cocteau and Hogshire, both serious opium users (and not users of heroin, morphine, or other synthetics), might suggest that it may not be as rare as you think
(at least among strictly opium-only users), to reach a point of standard dosage, and stay there.

I like the full quote from Cocteau on this topic (from his "Opium"):
" Let no one say to me 'Habit forces the smoker to increase the dose.' One of the riddles of opium is that the smoker never has to increase his dose. " [obviously, Cocteau is speaking for himself, and not for every opium smoker in the world!]. Elsewhere he says his standard dose was 10 pipes a day, which he would not exceed.

Cocteau lived a long creative, prolific life as a celebrated artist. Here was kind of a Renaissance man, succeeding in many arts: filmmaking (writing, directing), acting, novels and play writing, poetry, painting. And he was an opium addict for almost all of his adult life. He's perhaps my favorite (but certainly not the only) example the addict living a normal, fulfilling life, though in his case a lfe more extraordinary than ordinary.

Cocteau's friend Picasso once said: "The smell of opium is the least stupid smell in the world."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
[To paraphrase Bruce Cockburn: "who ever heard of drinking tea from a pipe anyway?!"]

considerthis:
Da Kine must be the cafe you mention.
Like Marc Emery, you were pushing the envelope on cannabis laws. I admire your courage. Fortunately, you are facing Canadian, not American justice.

Do you ever wonder though, that if only you had sold cannabis at the cafe under, rather than over the counter, you might still be happily in business?

The Vancouver police apparently are willing to turn a blind eye to ongoing cannabis dealing
from within certain businesses.

Certain bars, you may know, sanction organized ongoing all-day-long pot dealing on their premises,and have been doing so for years, and the police seem to have adopted a completely hands off policy concerning it.

Bob999;
Guess I'd best talk specifics, not generalizations.

My cafe was called Crosstown Traffic. This was many years ago, in the golden past of Grasstown, when idealism was high all of the time.

The local police seemed to have little or no problem with CT. They'd occasionally drop by but recognizing that there was likely to be no problems in a place that peaceful, they left us mostly alone.

Until the U.S.------- sailed into port.

I was plucked from my seat (rather detrimental to the dignity) by the head of the Vancouver Drug Squad and U.S. Naval Intelligence (funny - I've been naval gazing for years and have found very little intelligence. And a lot of lint). I was the first person hit in the wholesale clearout of pot dealers in Gastown, by virtue of being both public and devastatingly cute.

I was told (by never-you-mind) that the DEA had personally involved itself in Vancouver drug issues - both RCMP and City police based. Later it was revealed that the DEA had maintained an office in Vancouver for some time. This never changed, as far as I know. Americans still affect our treatment of our own people far more than we're willing to believe.

Thus my awareness that the real war on drugs is political and not personal; justice is for those with more money and clout than was available to me in those days. A lot of money and time went into prosecuting me that could have so easily been earmarked for housing, medicine and treatment of someone whose behaviours cause real societal problems. And I'm hardly the only one. I've been there to see the silly waste of time and effort put into fighting the "war on drugs", which in the end equates to a "war on the people"...

considerthis:
The fact your Crosstown Traffic story dates back a generation, yet mirrors recent developments in Vancouver, reminds me of the "some things never change" truism.

Penalties, I guess, have since decreased. That's one positive difference (though this could start reversing under our new P.M.). I imagine you got more than "house arrest" (which I don't think even existed as a penalty 35+ years ago).

The Emery case certainly revealed the US DEA still has lots of clout in Canada. They don't even make a secret of operating active DEA offices in B.C. There was even an official public announcement of this, covered in the mainstream news, a few years back.

The American war on drugs, despite its abject failure and wasting of taxpayers' $, appears to be an "inspiration" to Stephen Harper.
I don't get it. Unless he's simply pandering to (a now very unpopular) U.S. administration, and worst part of his base, the right wing social conservatives (who are so often hypocrites, as they tolerate deadly legal drugs, while demonizing more benign prohibited ones). He knows he can't get away with giving them abortion ban legislation, but maybe he can curry favour by revving up his own version of an ill conceived anti-drug war, certainly a war on the people, I agree with you.