Open Thread Dec. 8: Safe Injection Sites for Addicts?

Filed in National by on December 8, 2017

A couple of statistics for your consideration: Delaware had 63 murders in 2016. It had 306 deaths by overdose. You don’t need me to tell you which one got more coverage. Virtually all those deaths were the result of people not knowing what they were injecting. One idea for reducing that death rate is safe injection sites, an idea that was raised in Delaware yesterday. The odds are slim, but it’s a more worthy subject of debate than transsexual students’ rights, don’t you think?

A federal case is ready to disrupt Delaware’s method for choosing judges. The state Constitution says the bench must be balanced with equal numbers of judges from the two political parties. U.S. District Court Judge Mary Pat Thynge wrote current state law “violates the First Amendment by placing a restriction on governmental employment based on political affiliation in the Delaware judiciary.” Time for some politically unaffiliated jurisprudence, don’t you think?

Lots of sober “it hurts, but it had to be done” pieces today about Al Franken’s resignation from the Senate. I think it’s an unforced error on Democrats’ part, but I could be wrong. Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times takes the consensus approach, but points out that a lot of the “we’re not gonna take it” anger sprang from Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, and ultimately it must be directed back at Trump if it’s going to do any lasting good.

I knew I didn’t understand women, but now I’m going to have to admit I don’t understand men, either. I thought I understood the impetus for many of these sexual harassment complaints, but the one that caused Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona to announce his resignation from Congress yesterday befuddles me: He asked two of his staffers if they would serve as surrogate mothers for Franks and his wife. Seriously, who does that? If Franken’s resignation helped prompt this result, maybe it’s already paying for itself.

The longer people examine the tax bills passed by Congress, the worse they look. By pushing lots more people to file short-form, charities in particular can expect to see plummeting donations, because if you don’t itemize you can’t deduct them.

Thomas B. Edsall has some interesting historical observations about our widening political divide. He quotes Karen Stenner, author of “The Authoritarian Dynamic,” to the effect that liberalism always produces this backlash against it. “Not only are the values that the left takes for granted heatedly disputed in many sections of the country, the way many Democratic partisans assert that their values supplant or transcend traditional beliefs serves to mobilize the right,” Edsall says.

Have at it.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    “it hurts, but it had to be done”

    Kinda assumes that Republicans will not use the new template to come after every Dem who they don’t like (eg. all of them except Carper). I mean the GOP is full of devious worms like James O’Keefe. The notion that O’Keefe isn’t going to try to ACORN the entire Democratic Party is naive.

  2. Dave says:

    “One idea for reducing that death rate is safe injection sites”

    To what end?

    I have always believe that abortion is wrong. However, since I also believe I don’t have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, my approach would be to reduce unwanted pregnancy, not to prohibit a perfectly valid medical procedure.

    To me there is a parallel regarding drug addiction. If we really want to tackle the problem, shouldn’t we focus our efforts on preventing and treating drug addiction? You know, on the causes, rather than the symptoms. Notice that we are very cognizant of the number of deaths from addiction, but we don’t see the same publicity regarding the number of addicted?

    Making it safe to inject would even seem to exacerbate the problem. Safe injection without intervention to treat drug addiction does little to mitigate the addiction problem. Given a choice, most addicts will not voluntarily submit to treatment. And why would they? Their addiction prevents them from making such rational decisions.

    I do not know the answer to drug addiction, but it’s evident what’s not working. Perhaps we need to be more forceful in getting people into treatment. While there are parallels to alcoholism, the traditional 12 steps may not be all that applicable to this crisis. Regardless, there is no way I can logically associate safe injection sites with any effective drug treatment program. In fact, it removes one of the risk factors that might be the forcing function to prompt someone to seek treatment.

  3. Alby says:

    “Safe injection without intervention to treat drug addiction does little to mitigate the addiction problem.”

    But it would do a great deal to mitigate the death problem. I’m not willing to endure lots of deaths on the way to ending addiction, a problem as old as humankind.

    “Given a choice, most addicts will not voluntarily submit to treatment. And why would they? Their addiction prevents them from making such rational decisions.”

    Um…no. People are addicted to things that make them feel good. Rationality has no place in the equation. It takes four to six tries (sources vary) before addiction treatment “takes,” and that’s just an average — it never takes for some people.

    Because I see no sense is pissing up a rainpipe, I’m interested in managing people’s addictions rather than “curing” them. Despite popular parlance, addiction is not a “disease” — you can’t catch it. It’s a “condition,” like MS or lupus. We don’t let those people suffer because their “disease” is incurable. Why should addicts?

    I’ll tell you why I think it is: We’re a punishment-obsessed, Puritanical society. There are lots of compassionate people in this country, but as a society we’re about as compassionate and empathetic as Cotton Mather.

  4. Arthur says:

    So you can go get high on an illegal drug at a legal site but you cant get a rub and tug?

  5. bamboozer says:

    Yep, sad agreement, this is a cold and frequently cruel country that revels in punishment and views jail as a “cure” for damn near anything. Also agree that the goals is to prevent death from addiction, as we all know that will never happen here. As for the Great Perv Purge it should be noted that it has taken on a distinct note of hysteria, I also view Franken’s departure as an unforced error, especially since Tim Pawlenty the ex governor is getting into the race for the coming special election and we stand to lose a seat in the senate. However it does seem to be affecting Republicans as well, Roy C’mere Little Girl Moore excepted.

  6. Dave says:

    “Because I see no sense is pissing up a rainpipe, I’m interested in managing people’s addictions rather than “curing” them.”

    If that’s the case (and if the rest of society agreed with you), why don’t we just legalize it and provide the drug free of charge. At we would eliminate some of the behavior (such as theft to get money to buy drugs). I’m ok with the economic side of the equation. Heck I’d even buy into safe injection sites in that case. Maybe even isolate them in their own communities.

    Still, I’m not ready to admit that drug addiction is an acceptable part of the fabric of society. Just because we haven’t discovered a cure or solution doesn’t mean one does not exist. So, if you want to just economically and safely manage addiction and then put most of our resources in finding a cure, I’m down with that. I’m willing to try just about anything – except what we are doing today.

  7. Ben says:

    If you really feel that way, tell me, what is your take on the legal-heroin being pumped into our society? Most of these people you are so quick to sweep down the gutter got started on doctor-prescribed Percs or Vics… It’s an industry that intentionally lied and continues to lie about their products addictiveness and the damage it can do to a body.
    It sure isnt a cure, but I would say prohibiting ANY opiod from being administered outside of a medical care facility is a great start. between NSAIDS and CBD, most pain can be managed without this shit.

  8. Liberal Elite says:

    @A “One idea for reducing that death rate is safe injection sites”

    Sure… we can call them opium dens.

    We have our own version of the opium wars here in the US. The wrong side is winning again (history repeats).

  9. RE Vanella says:

    Once again we argue over a question Portugal has already answered.

  10. jason330 says:

    Our politicians are not allowed to acknowledge other countries doing anything unless it is something that warrants bombings. America #1 !

  11. Alby says:

    @LE: Other than opium, I’m not seeing the similarity. The role of drugs in the two scenarios is different, the trade-imbalance issue is different, the fact that in this case the people pushing the drugs are in the same country as the addicts is different…so help me out.

    I lean libertarian on most issues of this sort, so opium dens don’t worry me nearly so much as bars do. Much rather deal with a junkie than a drunk.

  12. Dana Garrett says:

    I believe Alby is correct about the need for safe sites for those addicted to illegal narcotics. The idea that safe injection sites will increase illegal drug dependency is counterintuitive. Ask yourself. Would you use drugs that are highly addictive just because there were safe injection sites? Probably not. Likewise safe injection sites wouldn’t provide a disincentive for addicts to seek treatment. If the possibility of death isn’t sufficient incentive to seek treatment, why would anyone be more inclined to continue to use because they can do it safely? The only impact that safe injection sites would have on addicts is that more would stay alive because addiction has a biological genesis that mostly doesn’t take into account factors like incentives and disincentives.

  13. Liberal Elite says:

    @A “Other than opium, I’m not seeing the similarity.”

    In both cases you have the supplier of opiods “fighting” to keep a market open and expanding for their product. In the US, that “fighting” is done with heavy lobbying efforts by multi-national corporations, and the shills in congress doing their bidding.

    In both cases, the profits and the human toll are enormous.

  14. meatball says:

    lol, Ben. Ever had cancer or osteomyelitis? Advil ain’t cuttin it, lol

  15. puck says:

    Most opiate addicts don’t have cancer or osteomyelitis, lol

  16. meatball says:

    lol, most people aren’t calling for the abolition of opiod based pain killers, either.

  17. Alby says:

    “In both cases, the profits and the human toll are enormous.”

    Don’t start pretending you care about the human toll. I’ve put forward a way to deal with that, and you rejected it. Don’t pretend your stand is a moral one.

    If it’s about saving lives, my idea will work, because it does elsewhere. Yours won’t, because it’s never worked anywhere. But yours sounds more moral, I’ll admit. Good for you.

    Try looking up the numbers on opioid abuse. It’s not the drugs that are the problem, it’s the users. Granted, lots of greedy doctors are playing along, but the simple fact is that until we come up with a way of objectively measuring pain, you’ll never stamp out opioid abusers who take pills.

  18. Liberal Elite says:

    @A “Don’t start pretending you care about the human toll. I’ve put forward a way to deal with that, and you rejected it. Don’t pretend your stand is a moral one.”

    Sorry. I would say that you’re blind to the societal costs. Addicts are often not functioning members of society. There’s a huge cost associated with that, both financial and personal.

    Here’s a morality quiz for you…. If there were only two possible paths. One path that removed 10000 people from being addicted to opioids, but didn’t reduce deaths due to opioids. And the other path that reduces the death rate, but does nothing to reduce the number of addicts. Which do you choose?

    Which one is more moral??

  19. Alby says:

    The latter, and it’s not close. Many if not most of the societal costs are related to the illegality of the drugs.

    Not functioning members of society? What do I care? They don’t owe society shit. Neither do you or I. Puritanism indeed. They’ll get clean when they decide to get clean, and not one minute sooner.

  20. Liberal Elite says:

    That’s wrong. The correct answer is neither. It’s not a morality question at all.

    What we’re arguing about is social engineering. And as with most engineering, there are trade-off and compromises.

    But back to the argument… Opening up “opium dens” will both increase opioid usage and reduce deaths. That’s a deal made in hell. …and so we disagree.

  21. Alby says:

    “Opening up “opium dens” will both increase opioid usage and reduce deaths. ”

    No evidence at all that it will increase usage. Failed again.

    You keep addressing this as if addicts had no ability to make decisions for themselves. Ever done drugs yourself?

  22. meatball says:

    lol, lets make marijuana legal, lol. You guys are so stupid.

  23. Liberal Elite says:

    @A “No evidence at all that it will increase usage. Failed again.”

    You’re trying to tell me that fear plays no role in opioid abuse? HA!!

    “You keep addressing this as if addicts had no ability to make decisions for themselves.”

    That’s my line… And the decision process works like this. Open up the dens, and people think they’re safe… fear is reduced… and as a result, usage increases. Desire to quit decreases.

    “Ever done drugs yourself?”
    Uhhh. No. Never had the desire to do so (…but that doesn’t mean I haven’t seen its effects on the lives of others).

  24. Alby says:

    “You’re trying to tell me that fear plays no role in opioid abuse? HA!!”

    Well, that’s a convincing answer. Your “reasoning” fails because it is just that. Reason plays no role in drug, or alcohol, usage, unless you’re taking a dram of sherry after dinner for your health.

    Since you acknowledge you’ve never done drugs — seeing them is a lot different from feeling them — I’m going to point out you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and I’m going to stop talking to you about this because your ignorance isn’t going to bend to talk.

    I do want to thank you, though, for demonstrating the Puritanical attitude I was talking about. Well done.

  25. Dave says:

    @Alby “Opening up “opium dens” will both increase opioid usage and reduce deaths. ” No evidence at all that it will increase usage.”

    Agreed, but there is also no evidence that it will decrease usage and if we have to spend money I would rather spend it on decreasing usage.

    “You keep addressing this as if addicts had no ability to make decisions for themselves.”

    Don’t you think that a minimum their ability to choose is compromised by the addiction? They may want to get better but the need for fix is right now and right now overrules any rational decision. Of they choose everyday, but mostly those choices are about how to get their next fix not how to fix their lives.

    I have no answers of course, but it does seem like we expend a lot of effort treating symptoms instead of causes. But then that’s the same view I have with abortion where the effort is focused on ensuring access rather than reducing the need. The demand side of the curve will always be satisfied. The only thing with any long term efficacy is to reduce demand. I don’t see safe injection sites reducing demand. And the fact that it saves lives, leads to me ask – to what end? Or is that a sufficient end unto itself.

  26. Alby says:

    ” but mostly those choices are about how to get their next fix not how to fix their lives.’

    Only after their prescription runs out. As I explained to our teetotaling friend, most of the stuff about addictions that ruins people’s lives is strongly tied to the fact that non-medicinal usage of drugs is illegal.

    Yes, I consider saving lives to be a sufficient end unto itself. If some people need opioids to get through the day, who are you or I to say “No, because it’s costing me money.” Damn near everything is costing you money, and most of it a lot more than the junkie down the street is.

  27. Liberal Elite says:

    @A “I’m going to stop talking to you about this…”

    OK. Fine. I pretty much said what I wanted to say.

    I do want to thank you, though, for demonstrating the Puritanical attitude I was talking about.”

    But that’s ridiculous! My view has nothing at all to do with Puritanism. It’s a purely pragmatic, with the view that opening such dens will cause about as many problems as it will solve.

  28. Alby says:

    Which you don’t know. Thanks for playing.