Illicit-Drug Use OK In 'Safe' Site Under Proposed Bill

newsBot

Automated News Bot
Staff member
This just in from the somd.com Headline News:

Title: Illicit-Drug Use OK In 'Safe' Site Under Proposed Bill

Date: 02-19-2017 09:22 AM

Summary: Illegal-drug users could partake in recreational use under a bill that would create legal, sanitary illicit-drug use facilities in the state.

Click here for the full story...
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
So now there will "sanctuary" facilities in which to break the law without fear. What a country!
 
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swede...&sc=8-9&cvid=b6954b8c0d6a4a78b7cf8aa3e1a93a13

A Department of Veterans Affairs audit has found that the VA's medical scheduling issues go far beyond the Phoenix VA facility, with more than 57,000 veterans nationwide waiting more than 90 days for medical check-ups after making their initial appointments.

An additional 64,000 veterans over the last decade were found to have never had medical appointments after having enrolled in the VA health care system. The audit also found that some VA schedulers felt pressure from supervisors to falsify dates in appointment records in order to meet the goal of a 14-day waiting period for medical appointments.

Conducted over three weeks, the audit reviewed scheduling practices at 731 VA hospitals and clinics and found 57,436 veterans waiting for care 90 days after their appointments were scheduled. The audit also found another 63,869 veterans who had enrolled in the VA's health care system over the past decade had never been seen by VA doctors despite having made initial appointments.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swede...&sc=8-9&cvid=b6954b8c0d6a4a78b7cf8aa3e1a93a13

A Department of Veterans Affairs audit has found that the VA's medical scheduling issues go far beyond the Phoenix VA facility, with more than 57,000 veterans nationwide waiting more than 90 days for medical check-ups after making their initial appointments.

An additional 64,000 veterans over the last decade were found to have never had medical appointments after having enrolled in the VA health care system. The audit also found that some VA schedulers felt pressure from supervisors to falsify dates in appointment records in order to meet the goal of a 14-day waiting period for medical appointments.

Conducted over three weeks, the audit reviewed scheduling practices at 731 VA hospitals and clinics and found 57,436 veterans waiting for care 90 days after their appointments were scheduled. The audit also found another 63,869 veterans who had enrolled in the VA's health care system over the past decade had never been seen by VA doctors despite having made initial appointments.

But yes, by all means, please let the drug users have a safe place to shoot up and overdose. And lets keep medical personnel there to make sure they don't die after the 4th or 5th overdose.:sarcasm: You'll notice in the article, the other countries who are doing this have had no "fatal" overdoses. Keyword being "Fatal".
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Hamsterdam

There is no such thing as "safe" heroin, or "safe" meth. Why do you suppose Democrats are so in favor of keeping people hooked on drugs?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swede...&sc=8-9&cvid=b6954b8c0d6a4a78b7cf8aa3e1a93a13

A Department of Veterans Affairs audit has found that the VA's medical scheduling issues go far beyond the Phoenix VA facility, with more than 57,000 veterans nationwide waiting more than 90 days for medical check-ups after making their initial appointments.

An additional 64,000 veterans over the last decade were found to have never had medical appointments after having enrolled in the VA health care system. The audit also found that some VA schedulers felt pressure from supervisors to falsify dates in appointment records in order to meet the goal of a 14-day waiting period for medical appointments.

Conducted over three weeks, the audit reviewed scheduling practices at 731 VA hospitals and clinics and found 57,436 veterans waiting for care 90 days after their appointments were scheduled. The audit also found another 63,869 veterans who had enrolled in the VA's health care system over the past decade had never been seen by VA doctors despite having made initial appointments.

Well, obviously you think our military vets are more important than some ####bag drug addict. Where on earth did you get that silly idea?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto carried out an analysis that compared the projected costs of maintaining supervised injection sites over a period of 20 years with the potential savings to the health system in averted HIV and hepatitis C infections. The researchers’ estimates were conservative, as they did not include other infections associated with intravenous drug use and the costs involved in treating and hospitalizing patients suffering from overdoses.

Still, despite their conservative approach, the researchers found that one facility in Toronto would incur $33.1 million in direct operating expenses over 20 years, but save $42.7 million in health-care costs because of an anticipated reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections. This represented a net savings of $9.6 million.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...tes-are-cost-effective-to-health-system-study

The study builds on findings of a 2012 report which showed that opening three supervised injection facilities in Toronto and two in Ottawa — Ontario’s two largest cities — would be good value for the money. They would reduce public drug use and prevent new hep C and HIV infections.

Since that report’s release, new hep C drugs, with astounding cure rates in excess of 94 per cent, have become available. Two were approved earlier this year under the Ontario Drug Benefit exceptional access program — Holkira Pak and Harvoni.

The new study shows that a Toronto safe injection site has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10,763 per quality adjusted life year, compared to $31,781 in the 2012 report. This is a technical measurement that assesses the dollar value of a medical intervention, taking into account life expectancy and quality of life.

“Another way to say that in plain English is that if you look at the return on investment, it’s more favourable now than it was in our initial report,” said Bayoumi, who also contributed to the 2012 report.
https://www.thestar.com/life/health...y-bolsters-case-for-safe-injection-sites.html
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I have a question: At these supervised injection sites where does the drug come from.?
Do I just walk in with my baggie and get it injected?
Or does the site provide the drugs too?

If I walk in with my drugs do they test it for strength and for other things such a Fentanyl, sugar or Baby powder for it's purity before injection?

How about Qualudes, PCP,meth, and bath salts, do they watch me as I use them?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So supervised potentially lethal and absolutely life-ruining drug use is a "better return on investment".

My god.

As opposed to unsupervised lethal and absolutely life-ruining drug users OD'ing in the streets needing ambulance care, contracting HIV/Hep C, and leaving those dirty needles in public for someone else to potentially get pricked, yes.

I get the stigma, I do, but right now your tax dollars are paying for these people anyway. You pay for them to get a bed and meals in jail You pay for their public defender, their hospital care, their ambulance are, etc. Maybe if we spent less on those things that clearly are not working, there'd be more for veteran's services.





What do you think bars are for? What about restaurants that serve alcohol? I'm not looking for a tangent and research paper on the difference in effects of alcohol vs. heroin, just a question. What purpose do bars and restaurants that serve alcohol serve?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
What do you think bars are for? What about restaurants that serve alcohol? I'm not looking for a tangent and research paper on the difference in effects of alcohol vs. heroin, just a question. What purpose do bars and restaurants that serve alcohol serve?

Are you implying that someone has a drink in a bar or restaurant because it's "safe" and they are less likely to die of alcoholism in a supervised setting?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Are you implying that someone has a drink in a bar or restaurant because it's "safe" and they are less likely to die of alcoholism in a supervised setting?

I'm saying that bars and other state-licensed establishments such as restaurants give people a place to consume a mind altering substance that claims 10s of thousands of lives each year.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
I'm saying that bars and other state-licensed establishments such as restaurants give people a place to consume a mind altering substance that claims 10s of thousands of lives each year.

When I go to a bar/restaurant, I PAY for my choices of food and alcohol not the tax payers. The owner of said establishment has no doubt paid for the building, paid his/her employees and purchased his/her inventory, without govt. assistance. Therefore, when I patronize that restaurant/bar, I'm in a sense, giving back to my community and the local businesses. I am not dependent upon tax payer money to fund my habit or the building in which to do it.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
When I go to a bar/restaurant, I PAY for my choices of food and alcohol not the tax payers. The owner of said establishment has no doubt paid for the building, paid his/her employees and purchased his/her inventory, without govt. assistance. Therefore, when I patronize that restaurant/bar, I'm in a sense, giving back to my community and the local businesses. I am not dependent upon tax payer money to fund my habit or the building in which to do it.

Would you be opposed to a similar establishment for drugs? Where someone comes in and buys their drug of choice, thus patronizing a local business that pays taxes and gives back to the community?

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but tax money going to SIFs (safe injection facilities) don't include free drugs. Taxpayers would be subsidizing clean utensils as a means to limit the spread of diseases (a public health issue) which, turns out, is cheaper than taking care of these people after the fact.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
Would you be opposed to a similar establishment for drugs? Where someone comes in and buys their drug of choice, thus patronizing a local business that pays taxes and gives back to the community?

Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but tax money going to SIFs (safe injection facilities) don't include free drugs. Taxpayers would be subsidizing clean utensils as a means to limit the spread of diseases (a public health issue) which, turns out, is cheaper than taking care of these people after the fact.

Honestly, I am opposed to anything related to drugs and drug use. No, I don't want to fund the habits of others. It should not be a tax payer funded program. I think more of a charitable donation sponsored program would work. If I choose to donate money to these so called safe injection facilities, than so be it. I should not be mandated to fund someone's weakness and self imposed addiction.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Honestly, I am opposed to anything related to drugs and drug use. No, I don't want to fund the habits of others. It should not be a tax payer funded program. I think more of a charitable donation sponsored program would work. If I choose to donate money to these so called safe injection facilities, than so be it. I should not be mandated to fund someone's weakness and self imposed addiction.

And I'm sure most people agree with you on that.

It's mandated that you pay for their care, via tax money right now. Is it an "out of sight, out of mind" thing regarding the medical care costs they consume?

I think we'd all agree taxes aren't going away any time soon (or, ever), so what do you believe they should be spent on? Things that help the greater good such as roads and bridges, other infrastructure like electrical grids, medical and personal care for those who cannot, or don't have the means to, care for themselves?

I understand the idea behind not wanting to essentially subsidize their habit, and that's one way to look at it, but if you believe that tax money should be collected and distributed to, as a whole, benefit society, then this program is something that you should support. We currently spend a metric ####-ton of money on the war on drugs. This idea that the government picks and chooses what we, the country of freedom, can put into our bodies through force, by extension. This idea that drug abuse is not a public health issue. And this idea that we can be trusted, as a society, to gather in these places that serve beer, wine, liquor, etc. with the assumption that most Americans are responsible enough to consume those things and not be a danger to others; even in the face of the large number of people who don't maintain that responsibility, but should not be trusted to do the same for other substances.
 
Top