Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by FatPhil on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the choose-life dept.

This Bold Plan to Fight Opioid Overdoses Could Save Lives--But Some Conservatives Think It's "Immoral"

With Ohio beset by a massive public health around opioid use and overdoses--more than 4,000 Ohioans died of opioid overdoses in 2016--the Cleveland Plain Dealer sent travel editor Susan Glaser to Amsterdam in search of innovative approaches to the problem. While there, she rediscovered Holland's long-standing, radical, and highly effective response to heroin addiction and properly asked whether it might be applied to good effect here.

The difference in drug-related death rates between the two countries is staggering. In the U.S., the drug overdose death rate is 245 per million, nearly twice the rate of its nearest competitor, Sweden, which came in second with 124 per million. But in Holland, the number is a vanishingly small 11 per million. In other words, Americans are more than 20 times more likely to die of drug overdoses than the Dutch.

For Plain Dealer readers, the figures that really hit home are the number of state overdose deaths compared to Holland. Ohio, with just under 12 million people, saw 4,050 drug overdose deaths in 2016; the Netherlands, with 17 million people, saw only 235.

What's the difference? The Dutch government provides free heroin to several score [where a score=20] hardcore heroin addicts and has been doing so for the past 20 years. Public health experts there say that in addition to lowering crime rates and improving the quality of life for users, the program is one reason overdose death rates there are so low. And the model could be applied here, said Amsterdam heroin clinic operator Ellen van den Hoogen.

[...]"It's not a program that is meant to help you stop," acknowledged van den Hoogen. "It keeps you addicted."

That's not a sentiment sits well with American moralizers, such as George W. Bush's drug czar, John Walters, whom Glaser consulted for the story. He suggested that providing addicts with drugs was immoral and not "real treatment," but he also resorted to lies about what the Dutch are doing.

He claimed the Dutch are "keeping people addicted for the purpose of controlling them" and that the Dutch have created "a colony of state-supported, locked-up addicts."

Your humble Ed (who rechopped the quoting, so head off to the full article(s) to see the full story) adds: of course, this is quite a contentious issue, digging deep into moralistic debate, and where clearly there's little agreed-upon objective truth and plenty of opinions. However, we are a community dotted widely round the globe, and so I'm sure there are plenty of stories of what has or has not worked in different locales.

Previous: Tens or Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Needed to Combat Opioid Crisis?
Portugal Cut Drug Addiction Rates in Half by Rejecting Criminalization


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:51PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:51PM (#712675) Journal

    I don't want to pay for an addict's heroin either.

    But if it prevents crime and it saves taxpayers more than it costs them, then it seems like a good deal.

    Not paying for an addict's heroin has other costs:
    * losses due to crime (or higher insurance costs)
    * law enforcement costs
    * costs of incarceration (if you're going to get them off the streets)
    * devaluation of property adjacent to drug houses

    If paying for an addict's heroin cleans up our streets and saves money, then it is worth it.

    The question is: does it do those things? And if so, how well does it do them?

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:07PM (#712738)

    Yes and better than not, respectively.

    The evidence is already in, there is no more quibbling except from bigots who think black and brown people are the REAL problem and everything would be hunky dory if we wiped them off the Earth. Ok, the last bit is too extreme, these days most people realize genocide is a bad idea so they stick to trying to harm those communities as much as they can. If they can do it out of pure apathy even better cause they can proclaim "I don't care what they do, just leave ME alone!"

    Neo-racists if you will :D

  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:57PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:57PM (#713223) Journal

    RTFA. Or even just the summary.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory