Harm reduction

[dianaiad]

This is working under the assumption that, overall, giving people free syringes increases drug use... that is not true. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/66

No. Nobody just beginning to use drugs thinks that he or she will become an addict. Certainly I haven't ever heard of anybody who up and decided 'hey, I think I'll go get addicted to heroin/crack cocaine/prescription drugs/booze/cigarettes today."

The 'assumption" (was I operating under one at all?) if any, was that if someone is already addicted, removing the consequences of that addition isn't likely to encourage him or he to take the incredibly difficult steps required to stop the addictive behavior.

Clean needles and methadone or 'step down' detox? Sure. Clean needles just so that the addict can keep going without taking any steps to help him/herself? Dunno about that one.

As I mentioned, though, I didn't have to make that choice.

[semlogo]

Personal experience while on my mission, which was in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal nations in the world with regard to drugs. There is a park in several cities (especially Amsterdam and Rotterdam) across from the central train station where needles and sometimes methedone were given out freely with no questions asked. The same people are there every day, with no motivation to give up their addiction. Why should they? It's safe now, and they have tacit government approval of their habit. Everybody does it an no one complains.

Just about every city in the country has a hash bar where you can buy marijuana and smoke it. Some cities have a hash taxi that performs home delivery. I learned to recognize the smell of marijuana and avoid the homes where it was being actively used (because there is no point trying to bring the Spirit into such a setting).

The poor in that country labor under their addictions because of the Dutch tolerance of all kinds of destructive behavior and their compassion - which while admirable in its intent is ultimately misguided and unhelpful to those whom it seeks to aid, usually merely prolonging the time before they get into real trouble. Many, many people are just surviving, with no desire to do anything, no real prospects for the future, and no reason to care.

And for the record, while I have never struggled with illegal drug addiction myself I do have personal experience with addictive behavior. I can speak from personal experience that enbaling an addiction while trying to make it "safe" does more harm than good.

I will not go into any further details.

One person's personal experience doesn't trump legitimate studies. It's completely subjective and ultimately without value when discussing the effectiveness of public policy. No offense is intended, but those are the facts.

[LeSellers]

Why did you even reply to the OP then?

Because I didn't understand the OP. Had it turned out to be something I was interested in, I'd have contributed something more useful.

Your phrase "particularly in relation to drug use" made it seem as if your interest was broader than just drug use. And I have never heard the term "harm reduction/minimisation [sic]".

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

No. Nobody just beginning to use drugs thinks that he or she will become an addict. Certainly I haven't ever heard of anybody who up and decided 'hey, I think I'll go get addicted to heroin/crack cocaine/prescription drugs/booze/cigarettes today."

The 'assumption" (was I operating under one at all?) if any, was that if someone is already addicted, removing the consequences of that addition isn't likely to encourage him or he to take the incredibly difficult steps required to stop the addictive behavior.

Clean needles and methadone or 'step down' detox? Sure. Clean needles just so that the addict can keep going without taking any steps to help him/herself? Dunno about that one.

As I mentioned, though, I didn't have to make that choice.

I am really surprised... have you read anything that has been written here in this thread? Please go back and check the posts by the starter of the OP and also the plenty of studies that have been presented.

[LeSellers]

Have you thought that, perhaps, the drug user to whom you allude may not have chosen to become addicted, and is now unable to break the addiction? Have you thought that perhaps not everyone is born within the same circle of beneficent influences and friends as you may have? Do you really believe that all drug users have gone out of their way to get themselves addicted, just to get a kick and "enjoy" themselves?

What does that have to with my comment that taxes, the legal, albeit immoral, confiscation of one person's money to benefit someone else, imposes an obvious harm to those whose money was thus taken?

I have not commented on the drug aspect of this, because, as I said and you have noted, I am uninformed on this, yet another, nanny state process by which families are further weakened and both parental and familial rights and duties are usurped by an ever-growing and rapacious government.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

http://www.islandcounty.net/health/NEP_FAQ.htm

[birdgirl]

That is the quote I was thinking of, and no, it doesn't say "God can make anything right no matter how wrong it feels".

What it says is that what is wrong in one circumstance may be right in another. It is usually wrong to kill, but if someone invades my home then it's right to defend myself, even to the point of killing.

Right, so maybe in one circumstance it would be wrong to provide clean needles and in another it would be right.

[wenglund]

Ha!

Wade, you silly guy... my rose colored glasses indeed.

You must be a Jehovah fan.

So you say, Pollyanna.

Here's where I am coming from. To me, it isn't a morality issue, but a pragmatic issue. What I care about is what works overall in improving the human condition. My interest isn't in fussing with symptoms, but productively addressing core problems. Giving sterile needles or syringes to IDU's may not increase their personal drug use (how could it? Aren't the IDU's already using as much as they need to?), but it certainly doesn't decrease their drug use (which is the intended goal), and there is still some question as to how effective exchange programs are in preventing the spread of infections. There is also the question whether governmental permissiveness and enabling will cause increased drug use and proliferation of other vices in the overall population. From my experience, it does.

So, while in a short-sighted way it may seem compassionate for governments or parents to dubiously address the "dirty needle" symptom of IDU's, in the long run it enables the IDU's core problem, and may even inadvertantly incourage the spread of the core problem throughout the general population. To me, that's not compassionate, but a lose-lose for all parties.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

One person's personal experience doesn't trump legitimate studies. It's completely subjective and ultimately without value when discussing the effectiveness of public policy. No offense is intended, but those are the facts.

So you're not LDS? Because the legitimate objective studies have completely exploded the primitive notion of the invisible sky bully and have told us time and again that those who think God is speaking to them are, to put it bluntly, cracked.

[Jason]

Right, so maybe in one circumstance it would be wrong to provide clean needles and in another it would be right.

I'll grant you that it's possible. That still doesn't change the fact that you badly mangled the quote.

Given what I know at this time and given the situations described in this thread I do not support providing needles to addicts.

[Jason]

Jason:

http://www.islandcounty.net/health/NEP_FAQ.htm

I am only interested in links when they are accompanied by a coherent argument. Or at least some kind of comment. I refuse to let you get away with just passing on links with no comment on your own.

[Bernard Gui]

I would like to repeat something from a previous post....

If any readers have loved ones who are addicts, please get involved in

the LDS 12-Step program. Mrs. Gui and I lead a group in our area.

Ask your stake president to get one started if you don't have one.

There is a 12-Step for addicts, but this program is for family and friends.

Some level of co-dependence is almost inevitable for anyone who has lived with

an addict...whether as a child or as an adult.

The program deals with all kinds of addiction...substance, sexual, gambling,

internet, eating, whatever.

Please get involved if you have or have had an addict in your life, even if you

think you were not affected. You may be surprised.

PM me if you would like more information or materials.

Bernard

[Nathair/|\]

I would like to repeat something from a previous post....

If any readers have loved ones who are addicts, please get involved in

the LDS 12-Step program. Mrs. Gui and I lead a group in our area.

Ask your stake president to get one started if you don't have one.

There is a 12-Step for addicts, but this program is for family and friends.

Some level of co-dependence is almost inevitable for anyone who has lived with

an addict...whether as a child or as an adult.

The program deals with all kinds of addiction...substance, sexual, gambling,

internet, eating, whatever.

Please get involved if you have or have had an addict in your life, even if you

think you were not affected. You may be surprised.

Bernard

It's a great program, My wife was in it for a while. As I read through the materials, I think the name could be changed to the "repentance" program and taught in Sunday School without changing anything else about it.

Yours under the supporting oaks,

Nathair /|\

[wenglund]

I would like to repeat something from a previous post....

If any readers have loved ones who are addicts, please get involved in

the LDS 12-Step program. Mrs. Gui and I lead a group in our area.

Ask your stake president to get one started if you don't have one.

There is a 12-Step for addicts, but this program is for family and friends.

Some level of co-dependence is almost inevitable for anyone who has lived with

an addict...whether as a child or as an adult.

The program deals with all kinds of addiction...substance, sexual, gambling,

internet, eating, whatever.

Please get involved if you have or have had an addict in your life, even if you

think you were not affected. You may be surprised.

PM me if you would like more information or materials.

Bernard

Are there any in SLC or Provo?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

That's very laudable, but a bit utopic...

In the meantime...

...are drug addicts worth converting, and, if yes, how do you suggest they should be approached? What is the point of contact during which the opportunities will arise?

Needle exchange programs are one such opportunity.

While the laudable aims of the Gospel can be characterized as utopic, they take nothing away from the laudable efforts of those who do not follow it, and better yet, does not prevent anyone who does follow it from trying and promoting alternative solutions "in the meantime", as less-than-perfect as they admittedly are. I think any follower of Christ wants to minimize harm using whatever power and means they have at their disposal. Once engaged in public policy, they find themselves in the position of Mormon, who knows much better than to fully rely on the effort that he is involved with (Mormon 3:11-16, 5:1-2)-- participation is more a function of one's own heart's desire than the actual benefit effected to the "population" served. While it is noble to try, we must acknowledge that as long as it isn't the Lord's way (or time), we need to be measured in our defense and application of any solution that is the best of man's thinking or politics.

The Lord never abandons the individual, but public policy does, by definition, by focusing first on the benefits of the policy to the citizenry/population as a whole. As Christians, we cannot forget the individual addict and the means the Lord has given us to reach out to them (the concept of "the one"). The keys exercised by the prophets are not a matter of general policy but of individual salvation that leads into family exaltation and the uniting of the human family. The doctrine taught is general in nature, but is applied one person at a time. Public policy appeals to the masses and hopefully protects the majority. There is quite a difference in perspective between that and the Gospel's individual approach.

Addicts are worth saving. They should be approached as individuals. There is an inspired route, and there are uninspired routes, including public policy routes. The inspired route is the Church's formula and without compromise (the Lord is no respecter of persons); the public policy routes can be anything that experts can get passed that the voters think might work, usually with compromise. From my experience, what I can do in the Lord is more effective that what a public policy can do for that individual in the interests of the public, no matter what the public policy is. I am a more effective instrument in the life of that addict than public policy is, no matter what the policy is (in other words, with the Lord, I can work with any public policy).

This does not mean that public policy should be ignored. The saints should work within whatever policy exists and not become disagreeable when they don't get their pet policy in place. They should participate in the development of policy, if they can do so without losing sight of the special divine gifts they have to reach out to individuals and to help as individuals. If someone likes the needle exchange program better than other programs, that is their prerogative, and hopefully will be open to better methods as they are developed over time. If a saint has a gift to help addicts temporally or spiritually, he should not disparage those who do not; likewise, those who do not have a gift should not disparage those who do.

Saints who come in contact with addicts in the Lord's way get them into effective medical treatment and recovery, including public programs where they exist. While He may not guide public policy (that depends on how inspired the voters are), the Lord guides His children, individually, to the best solutions regardless of the availability or kind of public policy. As saints, the Lord puts us where we can be of greatest help, or, guides the addicts our way and helps us recognize the need.

This is why I think the Church hasn't a specific policy, and shouldn't have a specific policy, on public needle exchange programs. I think discussing the pros and cons of needle exchange itself, or how it is or isn't an application of Gospel principle, is perhaps a different topic. I have learned that Gospel principles can be applied within the constraints of any public policy.

[semlogo]

So you're not LDS? Because the legitimate objective studies have completely exploded the primitive notion of the invisible sky bully and have told us time and again that those who think God is speaking to them are, to put it bluntly, cracked.

I am LDS. A religion that does not, I might add, oblige me to disbelieve in any of the sciences. There is no scientific study that disproves God. Your notions of your own limited personal experiences trumping scientifically-conducted studies made using objective data are your own, and do not represent the teachings of the church.

Hope this helps.

[Jason]

I am LDS. A religion that does not, I might add, oblige me to disbelieve in any of the sciences. There is no scientific study that disproves God.

I can say with equal authority that these scientific studies do not disprove my position.

Your notions of your own limited personal experiences trumping scientifically-conducted studies made using objective data are your own, and do not represent the teachings of the church.

Except that the Church always teaches us that where the existence of God and the truth and principles of the gospel are concerned that our personal experience with the Spirit trumps any study out there.

[nicolasconnault]

Giving sterile needles or syringes to IDU's may not increase their personal drug use (how could it? Aren't the IDU's already using as much as they need to?), but it certainly doesn't decrease their drug use (which is the intended goal),

No it isn't the intended goal, this has been explained several times in this thread already.

and there is still some question as to how effective exchange programs are in preventing the spread of infections.

That IS the intended goal, and although doubt may exist, evidence to justify that doubt is still lacking.

There is also the question whether governmental permissiveness and enabling will cause increased drug use and proliferation of other vices in the overall population. From my experience, it does.

But that is a hunch at best, you have no evidence.

[nicolasconnault]

While the laudable aims of the Gospel can be characterized as utopic, they take nothing away from the laudable efforts of those who do not follow it, and better yet, does not prevent anyone who does follow it from trying and promoting alternative solutions "in the meantime", as less-than-perfect as they admittedly are. I think any follower of Christ wants to minimize harm using whatever power and means they have at their disposal. Once engaged in public policy, they find themselves in the position of Mormon, who knows much better than to fully rely on the effort that he is involved with (Mormon 3:11-16, 5:1-2)-- participation is more a function of one's own heart's desire than the actual benefit effected to the "population" served. While it is noble to try, we must acknowledge that as long as it isn't the Lord's way (or time), we need to be measured in our defense and application of any solution that is the best of man's thinking or politics.

The Lord never abandons the individual, but public policy does, by definition, by focusing first on the benefits of the policy to the citizenry/population as a whole. As Christians, we cannot forget the individual addict and the means the Lord has given us to reach out to them (the concept of "the one"). The keys exercised by the prophets are not a matter of general policy but of individual salvation that leads into family exaltation and the uniting of the human family. The doctrine taught is general in nature, but is applied one person at a time. Public policy appeals to the masses and hopefully protects the majority. There is quite a difference in perspective between that and the Gospel's individual approach.

Addicts are worth saving. They should be approached as individuals. There is an inspired route, and there are uninspired routes, including public policy routes. The inspired route is the Church's formula and without compromise (the Lord is no respecter of persons); the public policy routes can be anything that experts can get passed that the voters think might work, usually with compromise. From my experience, what I can do in the Lord is more effective that what a public policy can do for that individual in the interests of the public, no matter what the public policy is. I am a more effective instrument in the life of that addict than public policy is, no matter what the policy is (in other words, with the Lord, I can work with any public policy).

This does not mean that public policy should be ignored. The saints should work within whatever policy exists and not become disagreeable when they don't get their pet policy in place. They should participate in the development of policy, if they can do so without losing sight of the special divine gifts they have to reach out to individuals and to help as individuals. If someone likes the needle exchange program better than other programs, that is their prerogative, and hopefully will be open to better methods as they are developed over time. If a saint has a gift to help addicts temporally or spiritually, he should not disparage those who do not; likewise, those who do not have a gift should not disparage those who do.

Saints who come in contact with addicts in the Lord's way get them into effective medical treatment and recovery, including public programs where they exist. While He may not guide public policy (that depends on how inspired the voters are), the Lord guides His children, individually, to the best solutions regardless of the availability or kind of public policy. As saints, the Lord puts us where we can be of greatest help, or, guides the addicts our way and helps us recognize the need.

This is why I think the Church hasn't a specific policy, and shouldn't have a specific policy, on public needle exchange programs. I think discussing the pros and cons of needle exchange itself, or how it is or isn't an application of Gospel principle, is perhaps a different topic. I have learned that Gospel principles can be applied within the constraints of any public policy.

Amen to that

[wenglund]

No it isn't the intended goal, this has been explained several times in this thread already. That IS the intended goal, and although doubt may exist, evidence to justify that doubt is still lacking.

It may be the short-sighted goal of the exchange programs, but it isn't, and ought not be, the long-term and overall social goal regarding drug addiction. Instead, it is as I stated. This, too, has been explained several times on this thread.

But that is a hunch at best, you have no evidence.

It is a reasonable induction in lieu of scientific studies either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

I can say with equal authority that these scientific studies do not disprove my position.

You can say that is your opinion despite the evidence to the contrary. You aren't speaking from any authority at all.

Except that the Church always teaches us that where the existence of God and the truth and principles of the gospel are concerned that our personal experience with the Spirit trumps any study out there.

Using the church to excuse your cognitive biases on these issues is dishonest. Personal experience does not invalidate research. Moroni's challenge is not an excuse to project every experience in life onto the world and assume that your limited experiences are indicative of national or global trends.

Unfortunately, people do this all the time. It's irrational, but a part of the human condition.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

You have NO AUTHORITY to establish or contradict science, and your personal experience has no bearing on the truth.

You are presenting the well known sociology phenomenon of: All Indians walk in single file. I saw one do it.

[nicolasconnault]

It may be the short-sighted goal of the exchange programs, but it isn't, and ought not be, the long-term and overall social goal regarding drug addiction. Instead, it is as I stated. This, too, has been explained several times on this thread.

Harm reduction was never meant to be a replacement for other approaches to drug use. It is complementary to rehabilitation programs and the hosts of other programs out there. While we fight to reduce the incidence of drug use, harm reduction fights to reduce the impact of those that still use. So on this point I agree with you, but it isn't an argument against harm reduction/minimisation.

It is a reasonable induction in lieu of scientific studies either way.

Guilty until proven innocent then?