Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

You seem to be claimimg that all (or most) addicts that join a legal drug scheme will die from those administered drugs.
Could you please cite your reference data?

I would hope people would read what you posted, rather than just guessing - I know I did.
It was because you said:

quote:

---

By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand.

---

(I emphasised the key bit.) That is not what you were talking about.
You were talking about how 'enablers' actions ensure the death of addicts.
You were not comparing the death rate of drug users to non-drug users. Maybe you should have caged your sentences in less definite terms if you are only going by personal experience.
But even then, to claim that the doctors, etc. that work at drug clinics are responsible for the deaths of most of their patients is not likely to be blindly accepted. And you are entitled to this opinion.
I am simply pointing out the the basis for your opinion regarding "tax payers enabling addicts" is unfounded and offensive.

Of course you were talking about hard drugs.
If you weren't talking about hard drugs then you wouldn't be talking about giving them to addicts in clinics.
But you claimed "By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand."Since you seem determined to not address that issue, I will have to conclude that you have no way to support your assertion; that even your own personal experience has nothing to support it.

Really?
Ok...I'll post it one more time - but you refused to answer it before, so I guess you will still refuse.
Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts? Are you now also asserting that research into the affects on 'enabled' drug users has not been done? This forum doesn't work like that.
You do not make unsubstantiated claims and then demand others disprove them.
(And "inflames addictive behavior" is not the same as "ensures the death".)Stop making bald assertions and start providing some evidence.
If what you claim is so well established then you will have no trouble showing that enablers ensure the death of the addicts they enable....or you can just say that your opinions are not based on anything and are just pulled from thin air.

*sigh* You also said that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients - the two sentences are not mutually exclusive.
If you want to change your position, then fine.
But you should acknowledge it clearly. Different conditions require different treatments. It's common sense.Would you hand a suicidal patient drugs as a means of recovery? Oh..yes, you might: antidepressants.
Would you hand a drug addict a gun? No, you wouldn't.
It would appear that a gun is not a safe treatment for either condition, but drugs could be. If the world revolves around incentives and consequences, then why don't addicts quit when they lose their job? And then lose their families? And their homes and oh...they've lost everything! ...and they are still addicts.
"Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom" - and often even that is not enough. I agree: having well-meaning amateurs play 'doctors' is not recommended.
But that is a far stretch from what you originally claimed.So, do you now no longer claim that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients.
(I still expect you to avoid answering this.)

According to the series listing, their success rate seems pretty low.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

From that link:

quote:

---

In this case, behaviors by family members allow individuals with substance use problems to avoid the negative consequences that may accompany their actions.

---

Again, you equivocate between 'non-professionals enabling their friends' and 'professionals enabling their patients'.
No-one is advocating that amateurs go around treating addicts.

Wow - you only managed one sentence addressing my question before veering off into stuff about friends and family and tax payers.
*sigh*
Meh...I don't care enough to continue asking you for an answer you are either unable or unwilling to give.

Read the link that YOU provided...it explains.

Panda: Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts?
Hyroglyphx: YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients,LOL! Really LOL!Panda: What is the time?
Hyroglyphx: I have a really nice wrist-watch.Too funny.

Cigarettes?
Alcohol?
(Oh...you said alcohol. Should we go with your figures or with HM Revenue & Customs'?)You might need to have your thumb recalibrated.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Do you have a problem remembering what the fuck you are talking about?
The fact that alcohol and cigarette consumption is dropping directly contradicts your baseless assertion: You claim that legalising substances increases their consumption.
And when I show you that legal drug consumption is dropping: you post a link to research into how to reduce the consumption of legal drugs.
You don't seem to know what you are saying.Your claim that legalising drugs increases their consumption is still just an assertion lacking any support.
Legalisation and education have a proven history of reducing consumption: we can see it happening all around us.