I think part of the problem with the Swiss study is that it was flawed. It wasn't so much a study as it was a doling out of drugs to people.
And really, since they never tested to see which was better (for the addict's long term mental and physical health and such) by setting the study up to compare treatement vs providing drugs, really it just seems like they're just trying to keep the addicts quite and contained until they die.
And that doesn't exactly smack of social responsibility there.
"Soma distribution!" shouted a loud voice. "In good order, please. Hurry up there."
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)
A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)Follow
No. I'm sorry, but what you posted was blatantly partisane. It quoted "experts" and "former heroin addicts". Come on...
The only bit that was relevant to the Swiss experiment was p this WHO report that criticised the Swiss experiment as a scientific project.
It states that:
Meaning that the Swiss project was not conducted in accordance with scientific standards strictly enough for it to be an authority for the WHO in its recomendations to other countries.
Big deal. It doesnt mean this approach in general doesnt work. nor that the Swiss experimetn failed.
Second, addicts have a choice: quit or continue.
In today's system, if they continue, they'll poison their body with **** heroin cut with rat poison. If they quit, they wont have that much help on the way.
In the other one, if they continue, they do so under supervision with clean heroin that will be 10 times less harmful to the body. They will be encouraged to quit every step of the way.
The fundamentals dont change, it's still in the addicts' hands. But in one scenario its underground, in the other its not.
And heroin-user-benefit is only a small part of the whole reasoning on drug legalisation.
The only bit that was relevant to the Swiss experiment was p this WHO report that criticised the Swiss experiment as a scientific project.
It states that:
Quote:
The project was an "observational study without the possibility of making reliable unbiased comparisons between treatment options."
- The project did "not provide clear evidence for the benefits of heroin treatment over other substitution agents."
- The project established "no causal link....between prescription of heroin and improvements in health or social status...."
- Therefore, "it is difficult to conclude that the available results of this Swiss study could assist any other country...."
- The project did "not provide clear evidence for the benefits of heroin treatment over other substitution agents."
- The project established "no causal link....between prescription of heroin and improvements in health or social status...."
- Therefore, "it is difficult to conclude that the available results of this Swiss study could assist any other country...."
Meaning that the Swiss project was not conducted in accordance with scientific standards strictly enough for it to be an authority for the WHO in its recomendations to other countries.
Big deal. It doesnt mean this approach in general doesnt work. nor that the Swiss experimetn failed.
Second, addicts have a choice: quit or continue.
In today's system, if they continue, they'll poison their body with **** heroin cut with rat poison. If they quit, they wont have that much help on the way.
In the other one, if they continue, they do so under supervision with clean heroin that will be 10 times less harmful to the body. They will be encouraged to quit every step of the way.
The fundamentals dont change, it's still in the addicts' hands. But in one scenario its underground, in the other its not.
And heroin-user-benefit is only a small part of the whole reasoning on drug legalisation.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
No. I'm sorry, but what you posted was blatantly partisane. It quoted "experts" and "former heroin addicts". Come on...
Oh right. Drugpolicy.org doesn't have an agenda at all. So sorry.
I liked how you put experts in quotes, btw. Like all the article said was "Yeah these random "experts" said this. Not like, Yale University’s Sally Satel or, say, a physicians analyst.
Quote:
The only bit that was relevant to the Swiss experiment was p this WHO report that criticised the Swiss experiment as a scientific project.
It states that:
Meaning that the Swiss project was not conducted in accordance with scientific standards strictly enough for it to be an authority for the WHO in its recomendations to other countries.
Big deal. It doesnt mean this approach in general doesnt work. nor that the Swiss experimetn failed.
It states that:
Quote:
The project was an "observational study without the possibility of making reliable unbiased comparisons between treatment options."
- The project did "not provide clear evidence for the benefits of heroin treatment over other substitution agents."
- The project established "no causal link....between prescription of heroin and improvements in health or social status...."
- Therefore, "it is difficult to conclude that the available results of this Swiss study could assist any other country...."
- The project did "not provide clear evidence for the benefits of heroin treatment over other substitution agents."
- The project established "no causal link....between prescription of heroin and improvements in health or social status...."
- Therefore, "it is difficult to conclude that the available results of this Swiss study could assist any other country...."
Meaning that the Swiss project was not conducted in accordance with scientific standards strictly enough for it to be an authority for the WHO in its recomendations to other countries.
Big deal. It doesnt mean this approach in general doesnt work. nor that the Swiss experimetn failed.
Never said it failed. I said it wasn't a study. It was free handouts of drugs to further an agenda. Had they wanted to test it as a viable option they would have undertaken the endeavor scientifically (which, btw, was the condition of approval from the Swiss govt - oops!).
But you're right, your completely neutral link without an agenda to its name trumps my link from a website FOR DRUG USING ACTIVISTS. Bah, but who cares what they want, we'll tell 'em what they want and if they complain we'll just give em more to keep em quiet.
Right?
You altruist you.
Quote:
Never said it failed. I said it wasn't a study.
I agree.
Quote:
It was free handouts of drugs to further an agenda.
To further the agenda of whom exactly? The Swiss government? Heroin addicts? How exactly does the Swiss government "further its agenda" by allowing this?
I suppose a program where the government produces drugs and hands them out to the public would be a brave new idea.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
43 posts
There is one simple reason why, at least for weed, this will not happen anytime soon. You can't test for it like you can with alcohol on the spot when you get pulled over for being under the influence.
I see nothing wrong with legalizing that drug, and I am hopeful that if a test like the breathalizer is ever developed, then it would be legalized.
The other drugs, unfortunately, have too many health risks involved with them that are known to be declared safe for use and legal.
I see nothing wrong with legalizing that drug, and I am hopeful that if a test like the breathalizer is ever developed, then it would be legalized.
The other drugs, unfortunately, have too many health risks involved with them that are known to be declared safe for use and legal.
Recent Visitors: 220
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (220)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC