We need to help all people in any way possible. I often wonder what, in society, causes people to become addicted in the first place. Perhaps knowing that would lead to the ultimate cure.
Mars - 15 years ago
What's next??Give alcoholics all the drug they need? How about smokers- give them all the nicotine they need? there are so many " mind altering drugs "on the market-- why not try & help addicted people -of all drugs-- instead of handing out more--from the tax payers!!! I'm disgusted with people that don't want help-from addiction-- You make a choice-- either you are on them-- or get off. Nobody can really help the addictor-- but himself--in the end it's a descision making choice--& hopefull the Government does not use the tax payers money t o add to the problems.WE need institutions for the mentally ill & druggys--& the street people-- they can't function in society on their own-- need supervision day & nite--I'd rather have my dollars go into that!!!! Thanks.M
Ghassan - 15 years ago
I voted yes, assuming that the word "research" means that we are researching for finding cure, social cure or medical cure, and we are doing research on few number of addicts.
I read other comments, and I support the poeple who don't want to use our tax dollars for drugs.
I am in the same camp, and I am concern where are my tax dollars are going.
But investing in research for finding solution is a good investement, because addiction is a huge social problem, and it needs cooperation from the whole society to fight it.
Ron Blank - 15 years ago
Where do we go? What do we do? If you are sick with AID's/ARC, we (the various Health Agencies) take care of you. Sick with STDs, and we treat you. Both are mostly diseases of choice. Contract influenza/hepatitus/mononucleous, we treat you. You must realize that addictions, though they may be a disease of choice, (See latest McLeans article) we must treat you. In addition to the addicts heroin 'fix' these people will be offered counselling, clothing and shelter. Do they want to be there? NO! We can help some of them recover. They can become contributing members of our society. We need to give them a chance. Some will take it. That is all that we cand reasonably do. That is what we must do!
Frans Hoogeveen - 15 years ago
Heroin is not in itself the problem. It is very addictive but there are more people than we know live with the habit. The problem is with the cost. That increasing cost forces them to steal or a sell drugs, (usually both) do whatever to get their fix. All around, the only one who gains is the wholesaler. He/she is likely a multi-millionaire considered above suspicion. The volume increases the junkie's free supply.
The heroin world has it's own "circle" and often has no contact with other drug users except when there is no heroin around. Supplying heroin with controls and conditions it a great idea. Remove the need to make big dollars.
It's much cheaper than what the addict costs society just for the policing. It is one of the reasons the police are against legalizing anything. Under the premise that it would "open the gates" to everyone getting addicted. In actual fact if society were to remove the non violent crimes the police force could likely be cut in half. That scares any employee.
The fear that everyone will become a junkie is absurd. Not much different than cigarettes -some smoke some don't. The addictive nature of heroin will deter most people. Laws don't.
Rich - 15 years ago
This shouldn't even be questioned. We'd all be a bunch of losers if we said 'Yes' to the question. So let's see, in Europe they give people a special park, the heroin and the needles and you can see what they've got, a big health problem. We've got one of the best health-care systems in the world. Let's not spend our needed health dollars on feeding these types of habits. And further, do we want to walk through parks where people are shooting up all the time. If it's underground now, keep it there. I don't want my kids and grand-kids exposed to this nonsense. I've gone back to school and believe me the Regional government will take its' time penalizing smokers but not the drug abuser because it's a policing issue. So, drug use has been on-going for centuries and we want to help make more druggies, I don't think so! Just what I want, a bunch of drug-addicted people coming to work, driving cars, taking care of day-care's. No, in Canada there is drug-abuse but not to the extent as it is in Europe. Just ask my Dutch friend, who's so glad to be in Canada, away from all the rif-raf over there.
Feldebel Wolfenstool - 15 years ago
It's worked in Europe. Forget the paycheque-addicted, punishment-oriented police force and 100 years of their dumbosity, it's a health issue.
DianeG - 15 years ago
The way this question is worded is definitely slanted to provoke a no response.
Clinics that provide drugs and offer treatment to addicts have proven to be successful.
Todd Hagar - 15 years ago
Hard core addicts should be given free health care to lessen dependency not supply a catalist for consumption. Why would any government want to promote production of heroin. Is this the "next best thing" idea? No money coming in on legal taxable cigarettes - so lets get the public hooked on highly addictive heroin. That's really a pretty good gig. Thankyou highway of heros for securing the supply of high grade cheap heroin.
paul rickyson - 15 years ago
I voted no because I don't want my taxes or in this case since there is a buget deficit, chinese money being spent so addicts can do heroin.
ralph - 15 years ago
Heroin is really cheap, if addicts were supplied the cost would be minimal, would save the breakins cost of crimes, policing would be reduced and they could hold down the types of jobs they are qualified of doing anyway.
Then they could legalize bud and the huge profits would be removed, policing cost would be reduced by $billions and the streets would be safe again.
The war on drugs has gone the way of every other war in the last 60 years, it is time to do something intelligent that may work. The fundamentalist have cost us everything including our pensions, lets use stem cell research and we might even grow a brain.
No. I don't will pay taxes for buy drugs.
We need to help all people in any way possible. I often wonder what, in society, causes people to become addicted in the first place. Perhaps knowing that would lead to the ultimate cure.
What's next??Give alcoholics all the drug they need? How about smokers- give them all the nicotine they need? there are so many " mind altering drugs "on the market-- why not try & help addicted people -of all drugs-- instead of handing out more--from the tax payers!!! I'm disgusted with people that don't want help-from addiction-- You make a choice-- either you are on them-- or get off. Nobody can really help the addictor-- but himself--in the end it's a descision making choice--& hopefull the Government does not use the tax payers money t o add to the problems.WE need institutions for the mentally ill & druggys--& the street people-- they can't function in society on their own-- need supervision day & nite--I'd rather have my dollars go into that!!!! Thanks.M
I voted yes, assuming that the word "research" means that we are researching for finding cure, social cure or medical cure, and we are doing research on few number of addicts.
I read other comments, and I support the poeple who don't want to use our tax dollars for drugs.
I am in the same camp, and I am concern where are my tax dollars are going.
But investing in research for finding solution is a good investement, because addiction is a huge social problem, and it needs cooperation from the whole society to fight it.
Where do we go? What do we do? If you are sick with AID's/ARC, we (the various Health Agencies) take care of you. Sick with STDs, and we treat you. Both are mostly diseases of choice. Contract influenza/hepatitus/mononucleous, we treat you. You must realize that addictions, though they may be a disease of choice, (See latest McLeans article) we must treat you. In addition to the addicts heroin 'fix' these people will be offered counselling, clothing and shelter. Do they want to be there? NO! We can help some of them recover. They can become contributing members of our society. We need to give them a chance. Some will take it. That is all that we cand reasonably do. That is what we must do!
Heroin is not in itself the problem. It is very addictive but there are more people than we know live with the habit. The problem is with the cost. That increasing cost forces them to steal or a sell drugs, (usually both) do whatever to get their fix. All around, the only one who gains is the wholesaler. He/she is likely a multi-millionaire considered above suspicion. The volume increases the junkie's free supply.
The heroin world has it's own "circle" and often has no contact with other drug users except when there is no heroin around. Supplying heroin with controls and conditions it a great idea. Remove the need to make big dollars.
It's much cheaper than what the addict costs society just for the policing. It is one of the reasons the police are against legalizing anything. Under the premise that it would "open the gates" to everyone getting addicted. In actual fact if society were to remove the non violent crimes the police force could likely be cut in half. That scares any employee.
The fear that everyone will become a junkie is absurd. Not much different than cigarettes -some smoke some don't. The addictive nature of heroin will deter most people. Laws don't.
This shouldn't even be questioned. We'd all be a bunch of losers if we said 'Yes' to the question. So let's see, in Europe they give people a special park, the heroin and the needles and you can see what they've got, a big health problem. We've got one of the best health-care systems in the world. Let's not spend our needed health dollars on feeding these types of habits. And further, do we want to walk through parks where people are shooting up all the time. If it's underground now, keep it there. I don't want my kids and grand-kids exposed to this nonsense. I've gone back to school and believe me the Regional government will take its' time penalizing smokers but not the drug abuser because it's a policing issue. So, drug use has been on-going for centuries and we want to help make more druggies, I don't think so! Just what I want, a bunch of drug-addicted people coming to work, driving cars, taking care of day-care's. No, in Canada there is drug-abuse but not to the extent as it is in Europe. Just ask my Dutch friend, who's so glad to be in Canada, away from all the rif-raf over there.
It's worked in Europe. Forget the paycheque-addicted, punishment-oriented police force and 100 years of their dumbosity, it's a health issue.
The way this question is worded is definitely slanted to provoke a no response.
Clinics that provide drugs and offer treatment to addicts have proven to be successful.
Hard core addicts should be given free health care to lessen dependency not supply a catalist for consumption. Why would any government want to promote production of heroin. Is this the "next best thing" idea? No money coming in on legal taxable cigarettes - so lets get the public hooked on highly addictive heroin. That's really a pretty good gig. Thankyou highway of heros for securing the supply of high grade cheap heroin.
I voted no because I don't want my taxes or in this case since there is a buget deficit, chinese money being spent so addicts can do heroin.
Heroin is really cheap, if addicts were supplied the cost would be minimal, would save the breakins cost of crimes, policing would be reduced and they could hold down the types of jobs they are qualified of doing anyway.
Then they could legalize bud and the huge profits would be removed, policing cost would be reduced by $billions and the streets would be safe again.
The war on drugs has gone the way of every other war in the last 60 years, it is time to do something intelligent that may work. The fundamentalist have cost us everything including our pensions, lets use stem cell research and we might even grow a brain.