okay, TL;DR the whole thing (I'll go back and continue after I make my comment that is crying to be made, and refill my coffee mug), but the whole point of safe supply is to keep people from dying. So while PP and DS (and Todd D), are calling for the end to safe supply because they are unclear on, or purposefully ignoring, all of the contexts and nuances of reducing harm to users, they are saying to me that the impact of organized crime in re-selling prescription drugs to provinces with unsafe supply is worse than having people die. That's right. People dying isn't nearly as important, especially those pesky drug users. Their value is clearly less as humans than the rest of us who appear to be on the straight and narrow, but are possibly not because "hard working tax payers" is some kind of shield.
While safe supply is not supposed to be a total solution, it is a tool amongst many needed to keep people safe until we can attempt to sort out the greater issues that lead to drug use.
(And alcohol - let's not forget alcohol, as the child of an alcoholic in a family with a multi-generational line of alcoholics. Which has a 'safe supply' and is acceptable to society in spite of the statistically greater cost to society. Don't get me started on this...)
Fair enough, but calling it a 'safe supply' is dishonest term. Hydromorphone and morphine are not safe and they have always been restricted as they are easily abused. OxyContin was once considered a 'safe drug' and we know where that went.
Sure, one could argue it's less dangerous than whatever street cocktail is being used out there, but someone can still easily kill themselves using 'safe supply' in a reckless fashion...which is often what happens when the supply is just handed out with little to no supervision.
I really don't think 'safe supply' is the panacea advocates are making it out to be.
One thing that stood out for me is how desperately we need dedicated investigative journalism. Parroting RCMP media lines is very definitely not that.
okay, TL;DR the whole thing (I'll go back and continue after I make my comment that is crying to be made, and refill my coffee mug), but the whole point of safe supply is to keep people from dying. So while PP and DS (and Todd D), are calling for the end to safe supply because they are unclear on, or purposefully ignoring, all of the contexts and nuances of reducing harm to users, they are saying to me that the impact of organized crime in re-selling prescription drugs to provinces with unsafe supply is worse than having people die. That's right. People dying isn't nearly as important, especially those pesky drug users. Their value is clearly less as humans than the rest of us who appear to be on the straight and narrow, but are possibly not because "hard working tax payers" is some kind of shield.
While safe supply is not supposed to be a total solution, it is a tool amongst many needed to keep people safe until we can attempt to sort out the greater issues that lead to drug use.
(And alcohol - let's not forget alcohol, as the child of an alcoholic in a family with a multi-generational line of alcoholics. Which has a 'safe supply' and is acceptable to society in spite of the statistically greater cost to society. Don't get me started on this...)
ugh.
p.s. ugh, Kyle Sampson. ugh.
Fair enough, but calling it a 'safe supply' is dishonest term. Hydromorphone and morphine are not safe and they have always been restricted as they are easily abused. OxyContin was once considered a 'safe drug' and we know where that went.
Sure, one could argue it's less dangerous than whatever street cocktail is being used out there, but someone can still easily kill themselves using 'safe supply' in a reckless fashion...which is often what happens when the supply is just handed out with little to no supervision.
I really don't think 'safe supply' is the panacea advocates are making it out to be.