02-17-2005, 03:27 PM
|
#1
|
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Clearly liberals are promoting durg addiction again
Quote:
in another discussion, Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Guess this means the invasion of Canada is a "GO"!
|
Quote:
from The Economist of 12 Feb 2005
Little by litte, Canda is groping towards a distinctive approach to drugs, one that focuses on harm reduction rather than the repression favoured by the United States. The federal government is mulling over a bill to decriminalise possession of marijuana. North America's first trial of heroin maintenance- givinga ddicts free heroin on condition that they accept treatment- got under way on February 10th in Vancouver. Later this spring, it will expand to Toronto and Montreal.
An otherwise idyllic city, Vancourver has the worst drug problem in Canada. For years, addiction has been rising, and with it gang killings, violent robberies, and break-ins. In 2002, fed-up citizens swept in a reformist city council dedicated to an alternative drug strategy, resting on "four pillars": harm reduction, treatment, enforcement, and prevention.
Its first move was to open North America's first safe heroin-injection site, a pilot project which, it is claimed, is curbing disease and deaths among addicts. Now comes the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI), a two year C$8m study funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a federal agency. In the three cities, the project will enrol 470 "treatment-resistant" addicts (meaning they have been addicted for at least five years and have at least twice had treatment without success). Half will receive methadone, an artificial opiate; the others will get a daily injection of heroin. After a year, those who have not broken their drug habit will be referred for further treatment. ...
One aim is to determine whether heroin maintenance, which is used in Switzerland and the Netherlands, will work in North America. ...
Researchers in three American cities were keen to take part in the study found it too controversial for them to obtain funding.
|
.
|
|
|