Summary Of Tim Worstal

There are no “safe heroin injection sites.” The only “safe” approach to heroin is to not take it. For addicts, the humane public health response is to help them get and stay sober, or at the very least, opioid replacement therapy in sustained treatment. Any approach without these goals is cruel and dehumanizing- not healing, but perpetuating harm. (Walter 2)

According to Findlaw, under current Massachusetts law, possession of heroine is a felony punishable by 2 years with subsequent offenses calling for 5-16 years. There is serious doubt that prison time helps an addicted drug user, with many believing that the opposite is actually true. It is not uncommon for a drug addict in prison to continue being addicted to drugs as well as becoming involved with more serious crime. With this in mind, police departments have begun to put in a strong effort to arrest individuals who are involved with the distribution of heroin. I do believe that this is an important thing to do. The people who hold the supply and sell it are bigger criminals than the addicts. By arresting the people higher up in the

According to the Heroin Epidemic in Northern Ohio, the best way to lessen the chances of heroin and cocaine abuse is prevention (Heroin Epidemic 2015). By incorporating and highlighting the dangers and warning signs within the school systems it could prevent teenagers and young adults from trying it. Many schools have the D.A.R.E programs offered at schools. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) is a program that provides children with the proper skills when it comes to drugs and violence. The law enforcement also works within the community. They interact more just to show others with a different mindset that they are here to protect and serve the community.

In the US, according to CQ Researcher, the number of those that used heroin had more than doubled between the years of 2002 and 2004 and doubled again between 2011 and 2013. It is a growing issue especially due to

At first Chapman does not limit his perspective to one side of criticizing the use of illegal drugs in society. Instead, he deals with this subject in a broad way. He argues over the fact that the use of these prohibited drugs costs the government a lot of money, police time and prison space and how in spite of taking several administrative steps, the government has suffered from a colossal failure in stopping the drug abuse. He provides the data in support of his argument which is direct and precise. Through the example of Bennett, he tries to convey the message that people are not willing to have the spread of drug abuse in citizenry. A survey was conducted asking people to respond to the following question: if illegal

The Government should adopt needle exchange programs. When the government adopts needle exchange programs for heroin use, the users would not being sharing needles with other people as much and if there is sharing of needles the needle exchange program gives bleach packets to hopefully make sharing needles safer for the users

The essay “Let’s Be Blunt” was written to show the flaws and failure of the war on drugs. I nits intro the essay takes a very pro drug legalization stance Caden states””. Early on the author compares the current drug war to prohibition, the banning of alcohol decades ago. Caden compares the current drug related crime to the massive amount of crime that arose during prohibition. He claims that the bans on these substances are what cause the crime not the drug themselves. By having drugs do illegal it results in people have to resort to using underground and dangerous methods to obtain them which they clearly are willing to do. Next an argument is presented against the way the government goes about fighting this war. Stating that the government focus its efforts on catching “Mr. Big” a theoretical mastermind drug dealer responsible for the vast majority if drug sales. However such a person does not exist. Finally

Illegal drugs not only harm the health of those who misuse them, they also hurt their families, children and friends. The crime and antisocial behaviour associated with drugs cause misery to the victims, and puts enormous pressure on the economy’ (NHS breaking the link, 2009, pg 6).

GLIDE’s Harm Reduction program performs syringe exchange and distributes naloxone kits to make sure that opiate users on the streets on San Francisco do not use contaminated needles or harm themselves. Naloxone stops the effects of opiates in the brain and effectively reverses overdoses, so volunteer-assembled and -distributed naloxone kits could save the lives of heroin and opiate addicts. In syringe exchange, volunteers give users clean needles in exchange for their dirty ones to make sure they do not inject themselves with old or possibly contaminated needles from the street; volunteers also collect and dispose of littered syringes. This organization is essential to San Francisco because, from a practical standpoint, heroin and opiate addicts

Now this drug replaces “years of hard moral training” and allows anybody to “be virtuous” (238). Due to the epidemic use of the drug, the society remains falsely content with their imperfect realities. The dystopian nature of this society stems from its

The city of Vancouver has been known to have a drug issue, more specifically in the downtown eastside area, which holds one of the most unwealtiest and oldest neighbourhoods in Canada. While British Columbia has an estimate of 20,000 injection drug users who are pronounced to be in poverty, have a mental illness, and be homeless (Jozaghi, & Andresen, 2013: 1). In efforts to reduce this drug problem, the city developed a plan using a four-pillar approach that focuses on enforcement, harm reduction, treatment, and prevention (Schaefer & Haaland, 2014: 242). Schaefer & Haaland (2014: 242) explain each portion of this plan: the enforcement component consists of a trail court which varies out the options for drug treatment, the police aiming for

There was a great push for a non-judgmental approach that would ‘reduce physical, social and psychological risks to individuals who use drugs and to society as a whole’ (McCann & Temenos, 2015, p. 217). Never the less, this was a highly contested set of policy formulation across all levels of governance.

Regardless of its legality, heroin remains an ever popular drug and continues to be an issue many cities face. Heroin deaths continue to rise each year; Seattle reported 156 deaths in 2014, 99 deaths in 2013, and 49 in 2009 (Beekman). Heroin isn’t a problem that is going away, rather it is a problem that grows annually. Deaths from an overdose, the spread of disease, and the improper disposal of dirty needles all rise with the popularity of heroin. To combat this, heroin safe-sites have been established across the world. Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, and more countries have all implemented safe-sites for the consumption of hard drugs under certain legal pretext which is typically an age requirement (Haemmig and Beek. 160-169). The first site proposed in the United States is here in Seattle, but unsurprisingly it is highly controversial. Despite any negative sentiment towards heroin and the consumption thereof, these sites should be implemented. This is not to say that the abuse of heroin should be endorsed and widely accepted however. The aim of these sites is to open a channel of dialogue between drug abusers and medical professionals to offer treatment, to prevent deaths and disease, and to keep needles off the street and out of public. It is for these reasons that heroin safe-sites need to be more widely established and that the proposed frontrunner site in Seattle needs to happen.

Ohio is in a war against drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and crack cocaine. The battle against drugs is never ending: some ask is there a solution or a better way? Drugs cause an outstanding number of deaths a year, tear families apart, and cause Incarceration rates to rise. There are many solutions to this issue; however, will society act and take care of this? To help people with addiction, there is medications such as suboxzone, methadone and a shot called Vivitrol. As well rehabilitation is available to drug abusers, both inpatient and outpatient. The urgency to get drugs off the streets have grown tremendously over the past couple years, from the death rate and overdoses caused by drug addictions,

The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals’ access to drugs through the liberty-limiting principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal autonomy and is significant to an individual’s freedom to act as they wish according to their values. The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter argument by