Harm reduction

[elguanteloko]

Come now. Do you really think Deborah was arguing that we not help addicts at all, or was she instead arguing that this (Harm reduction) doesn't really help them?

Many of us don't think on the consequences of what we are saying. For what she said (and we should let her clarify what she mentioned), it is clear we should let drug addicts suffer (get HIV, overdose, etc) so they would want to repent.

[Jason]

Well, we are talking about real life here. What you just said pertains to the world of imagination. "Everyone" would include drug dealers and there would be pretty much no drugs around. Again, we are talking real life situations, Jason.

By "Everyone" in this case I mean everyone my son respects and looks to for approval.

Again, you need to answer the questions, Jason. You have two options: let him use a needle that other 5 people used or let him use a clean needle. You don't want him to use drugs, you don't want to help him get high, I get all that, man. The question is, how can we minimize the damage?

I reject the idea that harm care truly minimizes the damage, especially form an eternal perspective.

Look, Jason, this is similar to car crashes. You don't want people to talk on the phone while driving, you don't want people to drive while drunk, you don't want people to drive while being angry.... but all these are going to happen. The issue is to make the safest and strongest cars you can so that when people get hit you will minimize the damage as much as possible. I am all for working with prevention, brother, but these things are going to happen and the question is, how can we minimize the damage?

I disagree with you that making the strongest and safest car is the issue. I prefer enforcing laws against talking on the phone while driving and drunk driving and focusing on catching those distracted drivers before there is ever an accident in the first place. I certainly do not approve giving drunks and celldrivers the false hope of "don't worry - we've built your car so that you will survive even if you refuse to stop your dangerous behavior."

[elguanteloko]

By "Everyone" in this case I mean everyone my son respects and looks to for approval.

Sure, you can tell your son how much you love him and how much you think he should get out of drugs... but while you are at trying to convince him, he is going to shoot some heroin and at THAT moment is when you could choose: let him go and use a needle 5 others have used or let him have a needle so he does not get HIV. You need to understand the issue, Jason. Drug addicts ARE going to use drugs it does not matter how much you try to help them out. Some of them will get out of it and some of them won't but that is not the issue. I am talking about for those that are going to use drugs: should we let them get HIV or should we help them do it as safely for them and their families?

I reject the idea that harm care truly minimizes the damage, especially form an eternal perspective.

Again, Jason. You can help those in drug addiction as much as you want; I am all for that. The thing is that drug addicts ARE going to use drugs and harm reduction is a way to try to minimize the impact of such addictions. Teach them the Gospel or any other thing you believe will work but in the meantime some ARE going to use drugs and the only thing we can do about those is to help them minimize the damage they can cause to themselves and to others.

I disagree with you that making the strongest and safest car is the issue.

Man, you are not getting it. That is ONE of the issues.

I prefer enforcing laws against talking on the phone while driving and drunk driving and focusing on catching those distracted drivers before there is ever an accident in the first place.

All this is great but you ALSO have to make strong cars because it is inevitable that some will crash.

I certainly do not approve giving drunks and celldrivers the false hope of "don't worry - we've built your car so that you will survive even if you refuse to stop your dangerous behavior."

and I don't support that either. you are using a straw-man version of what I am saying here. It is pretty unrealistic to be all about prevention of car accidents and not worry about making stronger cars or better seat belts, for example.

[Jason]

Sure, you can tell your son how much you love him and how much you think he should get out of drugs... but while you are at trying to convince him, he is going to shoot some heroin and at THAT moment is when you could choose: let him go and use a needle 5 others have used or let him have a needle so he does not get HIV.

And I told you what my choice would be. I would not give him a needle.

Again, Jason. You can help those in drug addiction as much as you want; I am all for that. The thing is that drug addicts ARE going to use drugs and harm reduction is a way to try to minimize the impact of such addictions.

But it's a way that enables their bad habits and self destrcutive behavior. I prefer to use ways that do not enable what I am trying to fight.

and I don't support that either. you are using a straw-man version of what I am saying here. It is pretty unrealistic to be all about prevention of car accidents and not worry about making stronger cars or better seat belts, for example.

Perhaps you don't see the difference between building a safer car, which helps protect everyone who drives regardless of whether they are engaging in dangerous behavior like driving while drunk or talking on a cell phone, and handing someone a clean needle for the express purpose of indulging in their heroin addiction.

[elguanteloko]

And I told you what my choice would be. I would not give him a needle.

...

But it's a way that enables their bad habits and self destrcutive behavior. I prefer to use ways that do not enable what I am trying to fight.

The choice is NOT between addicts having needles or not having needles to be able to shoot heroin but how many are going to share the same needle. That is where your choice comes in. Should 5 use the same needle or should there be clean needles for those 5? Should we let them get HIV (and probable spreading of it to innocent families) or should we prevent the spreading of the disease?

Perhaps you don't see the difference between building a safer car, which helps protect everyone who drives regardless of whether they are engaging in dangerous behavior like driving while drunk or talking on a cell phone, and handing someone a clean needle for the express purpose of indulging in their heroin addiction.

And that is, again, were you are missing the point. The point is not for them to "indulge' in their heroin addiction; the point is to prevent the spreading of diseases. Brother, what you are saying is comparable to saying that building safer cars promotes more people to drive under the influence and that, therefore, we should forget about making safer cars and focus only on prevention. You are saving innocent lives by building safer cars and by helping people not spread diseases.

Probably because you are seeing the issue as too personal or involving your own participation too much it's that you are not understanding the situation. What would you prefer, Jason: your son shooting heroin with his own needle or shooting heroin with a needle 5 others used? I am not saying that you are going to give him the needle.

[Bernard Gui]

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. The ultimate harm reduction...government provides safe needles, certified drugs, free medical

attention, and clean accomodations for addicts to shoot up to their hearts' content. Everyone's happy and no harm done.

If all risks are removed from addictive behavior, what motivation does the addict have to get help to quit? In the long run,

it perpetuates the addiction. The fear of bad consequences prevents some from using. Those who take the first steps to

addiction ignite a fire that eventually consumes them and all those that care about them. Unless they see the destruction

they are reeking on themselves and others, they have no motivation to get clean.

Have state-owned liquor stores reduced the devastation of alcoholism?

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. The ultimate harm reduction...government provides safe needles, certified drugs, free medical

attention, and clean accomodations for addicts to shoot up to their hearts' content. Everyone's happy and no harm done.

amm... for the sake of argument, yes.

If all risks are removed from addictive behavior, what motivation does the addict have to get help to quit?

Well, look at what prevents people from using drugs. What prevents an M.D. from himself using drugs? What prevents most people from using drugs? What prevents YOU from using drugs?

In the long run,

it perpetuates the addiction.

That is if you do nothing to help them get out, something which I don't advocate.

The fear of bad consequences prevents some from using.

Again, what prevents those that do not use drugs from using them?

Those who take the first steps to

addiction ignite a fire that eventually consumes them and all those that care about them. Unless they see the destruction

they are reeking on themselves and others, they have no motivation to get clean.

....

Have state-owned liquor stores reduced the devastation of alcoholism?

Not state-owned but privately owned.

[Jason]

And that is, again, were you are missing the point. The point is not for them to "indulge' in their heroin addiction; the point is to prevent the spreading of diseases.

By allowing them to indulge their heroin addiction "more safely".

But the real problem is not disease transmitted through heroin addiction; it is heroin addiction, and providing needles enables heroin addicts to continue their destructive behavior.

Effectively it treats a symptom while providing growth to the primary infection.

It's like drinking a shot of scotch while in a winter storm. Yes you'll feel warmer, but you haven't really addressed the real danger and may in fact have hurt your survival chances.

Brother, what you are saying is comparable to saying that building safer cars promotes more people to drive under the influence and that, therefore, we should forget about making safer cars and focus only on prevention.

Except that, as I said, there is a distinct difference between building safer cars (benefits safe drivers as well as dangerous ones) and handing out clean needles to addicts (benefits addicts).

What would you prefer, Jason: your son shooting heroin with his own needle or shooting heroin with a needle 5 others used? I am not saying that you are going to give him the needle.

If I'm not giving him the needle then what does it matter what I prefer in this case, since what I would really prefer is that he not use any needles at all?

[elguanteloko]

By allowing them to indulge their heroin addiction "more safely".

But the real problem is not disease transmitted through heroin addiction; it is heroin addiction, and providing needles enables heroin addicts to continue their destructive behavior.

Jason, I really don't find a way to be more clear. You are not getting it. You are talking about drug addiction but the issue is disease prevention. It does not matter what you do to discourage people from using drugs because SOME people are going to use them and it is about THOSE situations that we are talking about.

Effectively it treats a symptom while providing growth to the primary infection.

That is if you do nothing about prevention but I already said I am all for it.

It's like drinking a shot of scotch while in a winter storm. Yes you'll feel warmer, but you haven't really addressed the real danger and may in fact have hurt your survival chances.

my answer was: treat the danger AND help people live.

Except that, as I said, there is a distinct difference between building safer cars (benefits safe drivers as well as dangerous ones) and handing out clean needles to addicts (benefits addicts).

There is no difference since both will affect innocents (I have been mentioning the addicts' families a lot; they can get HIV, too).

If I'm not giving him the needle then what does it matter what I prefer in this case, since what I would really prefer is that he not use any needles at all?

This is about choosing the lesser of two evils and they are really different and not that hard to distinguish. Your son is for sure going to use heroin. You have to choose how to handle the situation besides doing all the prevention possible. Either you agree with him using his own needle (and someone has to provide it) OR he uses the same needle 5 others use.

[Jason]

Jason, I really don't find a way to be more clear. You are not getting it. You are talking about drug addiction but the issue is disease prevention.

The issue is disease prevention through the facilitation of drug addiction. You can't completely divorce the two issues.

That is if you do nothing about prevention but I already said I am all for it.

If you are truly all for prevention then you should be using all of your resources for prevention, with none to spare for "mitigation".

This is about choosing the lesser of two evils...

The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you are still chosing evil.

...and they are really different and not that hard to distinguish. Your son is for sure going to use heroin. You have to choose how to handle the situation besides doing all the prevention possible. Either you agree with him using his own needle (and someone has to provide it) OR he uses the same needle 5 others use.

Let's say your son is going to go on a shooting spree at his high school. Unrealisticly, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Do you provide him with a bullet proof vest so he has a better chance of surviving when the police eventually stop him, or do you do nothing?

[Deborah]

What Bernard said.

Having had children who used drugs, I am speaking from experience. You can preach and enable all you want but it won't stop them from harming themselves. They have to want to quit and sometimes the only way to get to that point is to let them be found passed out on the street having hit rock bottom. You just pray that God will keep them alive until that happens.

[elguanteloko]

The issue is disease prevention through the facilitation of drug addiction. You can't completely divorce the two issues.

you are not facilitating anything. people are going to use drugs regardless of how many needles there are. if you have a group of 10 addicts with 1 needle they are going to use that needle anyways.

If you are truly all for prevention then you should be using all of your resources for prevention, with none to spare for "mitigation".

again, I am not ALL for prevention and I already showed why that is absurd. Being ALL for prevention, as you are, is to be all for prevention of car accidents but refusing to build stronger cars.

The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you are still chosing evil.

So? Ever heard of chemotherapy for cancer?

Let's say your son is going to go on a shooting spree at his high school. Unrealisticly, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Do you provide him with a bullet proof vest so he has a better chance of surviving when the police eventually stop him, or do you do nothing?

I am still wondering why you continually refuse to answer my simple and direct scenario and then turn to come up with some analogies that do not apply at all.

[elguanteloko]

What Bernard said.

Having had children who used drugs, I am speaking from experience. You can preach and enable all you want but it won't stop them from harming themselves. They have to want to quit and sometimes the only way to get to that point is to let them be found passed out on the street having hit rock bottom. You just pray that God will keep them alive until that happens.

I am sorry to hear someone so close to you had to go through that.

What would you choose, Deborah: someone using a clean needle or that person using a needle 5 others used? We are not talking about preventing people from being "passed out on the street" but helping people and their families not get HIV for the rest of their lives.

[Jason]

you are not facilitating anything. people are going to use drugs regardless of how many needles there are. if you have a group of 10 addicts with 1 needle they are going to use that needle anyways.

Which is more likely promote more drug use, a group of 10 addicts with 1 needle, or a group of 10 addicts with 50 needles?

Which is more likely to promote drug abuse in society - a strict no tolerance position or a position of "we don't want you to do it, but when you do it anyway here's some clean needles"?

again, I am not ALL for prevention and I already showed why that is absurd. Being ALL for prevention, as you are, is to be all for prevention of car accidents but refusing to build stronger cars.

Except that stronger cars do not benefit only people engaging in dangerous behavior (and their families). And we don't give cars only to people who drive drunk or talk on their cell phone.

So? Ever heard of chemotherapy for cancer?

Yes. I wouldn't regard chemotherapy as evil. Unpleasent, yes, but not evil.

I am still wondering why you continually refuse to answer my simple and direct scenario and then turn to come up with some analogies that do not apply at all.

I think my last question was an excellent analogy for what you are asking me.

I wonder if the fact that you don't see this rests in your relativist viewpoint (as you have displayed in other threads). I darsay you might see no problem with addicts destroying themselves as long as they don't harm others.

[Zakuska]

What Bernard said.

Having had children who used drugs, I am speaking from experience. You can preach and enable all you want but it won't stop them from harming themselves. They have to want to quit and sometimes the only way to get to that point is to let them be found passed out on the street having hit rock bottom. You just pray that God will keep them alive until that happens.

Agreed.

Sadly sometimes this doesn't help. Speaking from experience.

[Deborah]

What would you choose, Deborah: someone using a clean needle or that person using a needle 5 others used? We are not talking about preventing people from being "passed out on the street" but helping people and their families not get HIV for the rest of their lives.

In the first place that child would not be living at home and I would have little control over what they do or where they are getting their needles. In the second place, I have seen even people with HIV live long and productive lives if they have disciplined themselves and take care to live clean lives. HIV isn't necessarily a death sentence and in many cases can be a wake-up call. If a person is at that stage where they are being destructive to themselves its very likely they are already estranged from their families. I have a bigger picture of one's choices and consequences then just worrying about clean needles.

[Deborah]

Sadly sometimes this doesn't help. Speaking from experience.

So sorry. Fortunately for my loved one it was a turning point.

[elguanteloko]

Which is more likely promote more drug use, a group of 10 addicts with 1 needle, or a group of 10 addicts with 50 needles?

Have you ever seen an addict thirsty of heroin? Dirty needles are the last thing addicts worry about.

Which is more likely to promote drug abuse in society - a strict no tolerance position or a position of "we don't want you to do it, but when you do it anyway here's some clean needles"?

another ugly straw-man of my position. You can have a no tolerance position and STILL provide addicts with clean needles because it does not matter how many addicts there are... there will always be.

Except that stronger cars do not benefit only people engaging in dangerous behavior (and their families). And we don't give cars only to people who drive drunk or talk on their cell phone.

stronger cars benefit everybody just as clean needles benefit everybody.

Yes. I wouldn't regard chemotherapy as evil. Unpleasent, yes, but not evil.

lol. You are choosing the least of two damages.

I think my last question was an excellent analogy for what you are asking me.

I wonder if the fact that you don't see this rests in your relativist viewpoint (as you have displayed in other threads). I darsay you might see no problem with addicts destroying themselves as long as they don't harm others.

are you going to address what I posted to you first or are you not? I'll post it again here for when you wish to stop running away from it:

"Your son is for sure going to use heroin. You have to choose how to handle the situation besides doing all the prevention possible. Either you agree with him using his own needle (and someone has to provide it) OR he uses the same needle 5 others use."

[birdgirl]

If I were a desperate drug addict and my mom or dad saw that I was going to use an old needle and they had a clean one but withheld it to let me learn a lesson I'd feel like that was a sick and sadistic kind of love. I don't think I could ever mistake the offer of a clean needle with my parents' approval. Do you really think your kid would think you were in any way ok with their habit if you gave them a clean needle? Wouldn't they just see that you were afraid they'd get HIV? If I did eventually get clean and I had HIV I wouldn't appreciate my parents' "reap it" attitude. They could have kept me safe until I found the strength to change but instead they left me vulnerable to incurable diseases. What about any innocent friends or family that get HIV from the addict? Knowing that you might have prevented that, could you look them in the eye and explain why it was tragic but so important to let them reap it? What if you or your grandchild were the accidental recipient of HIV or hepatitis?

Joseph Smith said that God can make anything right no matter how wrong it feels. I suggest that parents should pray about helping a child before making a blanket judgment based on tough love or even church policy which is not doctrine. Maybe sometimes God would want you to keep your wayward child safe from HIV in the hope and faith that one day he or she would overcome the addiction and be able to live a healthy, long life and bless you with posterity. Couldn't God make that right? Does justice demand that your child have preventable HIV or hepatitis even after full repentance? Feels like a cold and vindictive "I told you so." My dad would definitely do that to me but I'm not sure Heavenly Father would. Then again, Heavenly Father (and my parents) would have let Joseph Smith secretly marry me in my teens or while my husband was serving a mission. Sometimes Mormon love feels like the stomach flu.

[Deborah]

I suggest that parents should pray about helping a child before making a blanket judgment based on tough love or even church policy which is not doctrine.

I suggest that people who haven't been there don't know what they are talking about. Do you really think parents who have children who've been there haven't prayed desperately and done all they could to help the child before getting to that point?

Have you ever seen an addict thirsty of heroin? Dirty needles are the last thing addicts worry about.

Which is kind of the point. What makes you think they will use the clean needle if the dirty one is closer?

[Jason]

Have you ever seen an addict thirsty of heroin? Dirty needles are the last thing addicts worry about.

Which will promote more drug use - 10 addicts with 1 needle, or 10 addicts with 50 needles?

another ugly straw-man of my position. You can have a no tolerance position and STILL provide addicts with clean needles because it does not matter how many addicts there are... there will always be.

No, I don't think you can in fact have a no tolerance position and also provide clean needles.

stronger cars benefit everybody just as clean needles benefit everybody.

But you're not talking about clean needles for everybody - you're talking about clean needles for heroin addicts.

lol. You are choosing the least of two damages.

Do you see the difference between "damages" and "evils"?

are you going to address what I posted to you first or are you not?

I don't beleive in a no-win situation like the one you are presenting.

[elguanteloko]

Which is kind of the point. What makes you think they will use the clean needle if the dirty one is closer?

lol. well, if there are enough clean needles they will be closer than the dirty ones.

[Jason]

I don't think I could ever mistake the offer of a clean needle with my parents' approval.

In my experience actions generally speak louder than words.

Joseph Smith said that God can make anything right no matter how wrong it feels.

CFR please. If it's the quote I think it is, that's not really what he was saying.

Feels like a cold and vindictive "I told you so." My dad would definitely do that to me but I'm not sure Heavenly Father would.

Heavenly Father lets us live with the bad consequences of our actions all the time, when He obviously has the power to provide us all with clean needles.

[elguanteloko]

Which will promote more drug use - 10 addicts with 1 needle, or 10 addicts with 50 needles?

I thought it was implied in my response; it makes no difference. You can do a little bit of research and find out if giving out free needles promotes higher drug use. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/66

No, I don't think you can in fact have a no tolerance position and also provide clean needles.

well, then you can call it however you want but I think my position is very much more justified than yours.

But you're not talking about clean needles for everybody - you're talking about clean needles for heroin addicts.

No, clean needles for everybody.

Do you see the difference between "damages" and "evils"?

since we don't agree I guess I am not. you can just answer the scenario I wrote below so I can understand better.

I don't beleive in a no-win situation like the one you are presenting.

well, they are real life situations, brother. that is a real life dichotomy you have to deal with. Notice you are just choosing to follow your position without even assessing the problem; a recipe for dogmatic behavior.

[birdgirl]

I suggest that people who haven't been there don't know what they are talking about. Do you really think parents who have children who've been there haven't prayed desperately and done all they could to help the child before getting to that point?

How do you know I haven't been there too?