| From: DV (Avatar) | 20/06/2000
0:18:00 |
| Subject: Heroin | post id:
87084 |
| In 1994, Switzerland found itself
with a rapidly increasing heroin problem. The number of heroin deaths per
annum was over 400, the drug-related crime levels were increasing, the
general citizenry were becoming offended and frightened by the sight of
people dealing and doing heroin in the streets, the number of drug
"professionals" was booming (there was too much money to be made in
transporting and dealing in drugs). In response to this, the government started a radical but limited trial of heroin prescription. It would be aimed at those people who had failed in other programs and met other serious criteria. The results were very positive. elppa.uc.wlu.edu/~thephi/layoutdata/archive/March_9_1998/estory1.html Swiss drug policy controversial from Washington and Lee University. "Between 1994 and 1997, as reported in the Washington Post, the government of Switzerland identified 1,146 heroin addicts for whom traditional methods of treatment had failed. For these addicts and these addicts only, injections of pure heroin were provided three times a day at treatment centers around Switzerland, along with counseling. The results were overwhelmingly positive. Before beginning the program, 59 percent of the addicts were criminals of some sort. Since their heroin was now free, eliminating the need to pay high black-market prices, criminal activity among the addicts dropped to 10 percent. Also, many addicts found mainstream jobs and homes. Homelessness among the addicts dropped from 12 percent to almost zero. The rate of HIV and hepatitis and skin infections fell, and the death rate dropped by half. Some addicts even sought conventional abstinence treatment. " http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/07/07-15-97tdc/07-15-97d07-001.htm Switzerland's battle against drug use should be a lesson from Pennsylvania State University. The results were impressive. Two-thirds of the addicts had been involved with prostitution, drug trafficking and other crimes at the time of enrollment, but by the end of the program, that number had dropped to 10 percent. Diseases and disorders also dropped with strong signs that these once-hardened addicts were well on their way to complete withdrawal from heroin. http://pdxnorml.org/123197.html SWITZERLANDPortland NORML News There is a decrease in the number of victims of drugs. In 1997, according to police statistics, there has been a drop of 1/3. Police and experts agree both on the positive influence of the controlled distribution of heroin to chronic addicts and the use of methadone. In conjunction with other "harm minimisation" strategies such as the methadone program and needle exchange, this program contributed to a reduction of the number of heroin deaths from 419 to 209. (The population of Switzerland is approximately 8 million.) At the same time, the levels of drug related crime fell, and the incidence of HIV infection by needle-sharing fell. In 1998, the Swiss public voted to continue and extend the program to include thousands more people. In June 1999, a referendum reconfirmed this to make heroin available to most addicts. As the program has extended the opportunities for people to make money by trafficking drugs has decreased. In the Netherlands, there has been a liberal drug policy for some time. In a nation with a population of about 15 million, there are about 50 drug related deaths every year. The Swiss project shows that it is possible to reduce a number of the problems associated with heroin (death, transmittable disease, crime, homelessness, the public spectacle of drug dealing, the burgeoning network of heroin professionals, the marginalisation and unemploymeny of users) by providing heroin to certain users. In Australia, with a population of about 18 million, as reported in http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990209/news/news3.html The Age, there were 600 opiate deaths in 1997. There had been a 73% increase in a decade. It still seems to be increasing: there were 168 in Victoria for the whole of 1997, but 142 for the first six months of 1999. http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990705/news/news5.html The Age again. Despite this, there are many who recoil from the idea of trying the Swiss approach. This includes our Prime Minister and many other conservatives, and the organisers of the recent drug summit in Sydney. To these people, it is misleading to focus on the death rate, or to treat heroin addiction mainly as a health issue. They are concerned that such moves (and even such obvious projects as the needle exchange program) send the wrong message: by attempting to minimise the damage, we would be saying that we can live with the fact that people take | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 20/06/2000
0:23:00 |
| Subject: re: Heroin | post id:
87087 |
| I accept that it may not be
possible to transplant the experiences of overseas nations to Australia,
but the social and economic situations in Switzerland are not grossly
different from Australia. The Swiss program might not be as successful in
this country. One thing is certain, however: the current programs in
Australia are not working. I don't have a question. I just do not understand the thinking of these people. If you are not concerned about the drug problem because you are concerned about the actual people taking the drugs, then what the hell are you concerned about? Although, the number of deaths due to illegal drugs in Oz is dwarfed by the number of deaths from alcohol or tobacco, hard drug deaths are in some ways more distressing because those that die tend to be younger and because the death is often sudden. To my own thinking, it seems obvious that a program of heroin prescription would prevent most of the problems that I associate with heroin abuse, including those I listed before. The chance of infection is much lower. The chance of an overdose death in a supervised room would be practically nil. There would be fewer people drawn into the drug business, because there would be less money to be made. The amount of drug related crime would be lower. The amount of "visible" drug transaction and activity would be lower. The users would be able to attempt to carry out a normal lifestyle, hold down employment, instead of spending most of the time trying to work out how to afford a fix. If we assume that the heroin is being produced by the govt from approved poppy farms, then the cost to the govt would not be exhorbitant: although I don't have the figures, it would not be surprised if it compared favorably with the cost of policing prohibited heroin. There would, of course, remain one problem: getting the addicts off the heroin. However, it is surely easier to aid someone off heroin when the number of actual concerns in their lives is reduced, and they aren't afraid to seek help for fear of being prosecuted as a criminal. Well, I've said my piece. Here are some more links on this topic. http://oversteer.bl.echidna.id.au/carl/drugs.html Drugs: the right advice from David Pennington of the Age. http://ursu.uregina.ca/~carillon/98.11.26/feature/index.html A safe place to shoot from the University of Regina. http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980622/news/news23.html Reclaiming Melbourne: A new fix on drugs from The Age. http://www.democrats.org.au/sa/Media/98/981104_a.htm Time for a new approach to the drugs fight from The South Australian Democrats. http://liv.asn.au/news/president/19991101.html Reducing the misery of drugs - November 1999 Law Institute of Victoria http://depts.washington.edu/adai/conf/plenary6.htm Swiss Approaches to Heroin Overdose: From Safe Injection Rooms to Heroin Prescription from the University of Washington conference "PREVENTING HEROIN OVERDOSE: PRAGMATIC APPROACHES" | |
| From: Martegan | 20/06/2000
2:59:00 |
| Subject: re: Heroin | post id:
87107 |
| Hello
DV, SWITZERLANDPortland NORML News There is a decrease in the number of victims of drugs. In 1997, according to police statistics, there has been a drop of 1/3. Police and experts agree both on the positive influence of the controlled distribution of heroin to chronic addicts and the use of methadone. ------ What is meant by a "decrease in the number of victims of drugs." Is it a decrease in drug related deaths or a decrease in the number of people who become addicted to drugs? It's difficult for me to form an opinion one way or the other on this issue. On the one hand, if a programme like "safe injecting rooms" or "needle distribution" (etc) saves just one life, then it could easily be argued that it was worthwhile. On the other, I wonder what effect the "mothering" approach being taken by some governments and most of the medical proffession (eg. "heroin addiction is a disease and should be treated as such") has on potential drug addicts. It would seem that many of these people might see drug taking (portrayed in this way) as a method of attracting attention to themselves and their problems. Do you have any information on the effect that the Swiss drug trials had on overall drug problems in the society? | |
| From: steve(primus) ® | 20/06/2000
6:27:00 |
| Subject: re: Heroin | post id:
87109 |
| I am totally in favour of trying
the Swiss program. The "victims" of drugs are not those that take them but
the rest of us. 95% of women in gaol in NSW are there for drug related
crimes. We all pay higher insurance policies because of drugs -
particularly in inner city areas. If heroin were supplied to addicts they
wouldn't need to burgle houses, steal cars, mug people or prostitute
themselves to get a fix. It doesn't matter whether the program gets people off drugs, that is a secondary objective. In fact most heroin users get themselves off the stuff if they live long enough. Prohibition does not work. It has been tried and it has failed. If they cannot keep drugs out of gaols how on earth do they expect to keep them out of the country. A new approach is needed. Perhaps the Swiss system is not perfect but at least it is better than the current system and it gives us breathing space. The main objection to a program such as that in Switzerland comes from the USA. Thay have a zero tolerance policy and insist that their allies toe the line. Sooner or later we will have a prime minister with vision who is more concerned about the people than the dollar and a new policy on drugs will be brought in. The garden gnome, however, has no vision. At least he will be sent back to obscurity at the next election. | |
| From: recher | 20/06/2000
7:20:00 |
| Subject: re: Heroin | post id:
87114 |
| Switzerland had a referendum in
the last couple years to reverse and get tough with drugs. This failed by
a 3:1 vote. Last Year or the year before they had a referendum to
Re-legalize all drugs. This also failed 3:1. I speculate that 25% of the last vote to not re-legalize was due to Switzerlands central Eurpean position and it was not a concern about the evils of drugs as much as worries about the geo-political and social consequences of being the only European nation with Legal Drugs. There are four categorical stand-alone reasons why all currently prohibited consciousness shifting drugs should be RE-LEGALIZED! These categories of argument are: democratic genetic individual community I will only take the time here to elaborate on the overall benefits to the wider community of re-legalizing all drugs. One is the end of the major source of income for organized crime; Two is the end of the major source of corruption in the police force; Third is the freeing up of billions of dollars and thousands of hours of police time for other more real crime such as domestic violence and fourth is re-legalizing would end at least 80% of all break and entry, home invasion, mugging types crimes. Would anyone out there who does not favour total re-legalization tell me what negative outcomes outweigh all these positive ones just mentioned? And I haven’t even discussed the genetic, democratic and individual reasons why re-legalization should be the way. Remember we can always re-prohibit! | |
| From: michael c ® | 20/06/2000
9:29:00 |
| Subject: re: Heroin | post id:
87134 |
| As long as the supply of the
prescription heroin was part of a program to help the users get rid of
their addiction, I think a program like that is a good idea. If they are
so worried about it sending the wrong message, they could spend huge
amounts of money on an advertising campaign to send the right message
instead of stupid ads about the GST that give us no information at
all. Michael C (FTB) J | |