Kentucky's New Heroin Law Marks A 'Culture Shift'

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The state will now allow local health departments to set up needle exchanges and increase the number of people who can carry naloxone, the drug that paramedics use to save a person suffering an opioid overdose. Addicts who survive an overdose will no longer be charged with a crime after being revived. Instead, they will be connected to treatment services and community mental health workers.

Although I think this is a good first step, it still needs some work. It seems the courts won't jail them after an overdose, but neither will they allow them to take medication that would help get through withdraw and hopefully, off the drugs for good.

Success may ultimately hinge on the state’s medical community and court system. The new law says nothing about the state's drug courts, which refuse to allow defendants to take Suboxone or methadone -- a stance that is now at odds with federal policy. Attorneys in Kentucky recently filed a federal lawsuit against the state and its drug courts over the anti-medication rule.

“When they leave the hospital, where does it go from there? There’s no hook for treatment. There’s no intervention. We wanted to partner with community mental health centers and other providers to offer that,” Tilley explained. “It’s sort of based on the model of rape crisis services and victim advocates and the role they play.”

I know from experience that getting off drugs or alcohol is hard. You are afraid of what you have to go through. You know there are bad times ahead from withdraw and will go on using to avoid that, even when you actually do want to quit. Until addiction is seen as a disease and serious effort made to help the addicts, laws like this will only be a band aid on the real problem.

It's about time. Criminalizing addiction is a horrible idea...it never ends well. Maybe this will help some people get off that horrible drug, and start getting the help they need. Good one.

It is heartening to see that the complexity of addiction and drug use is finally being tackled in an intelligent way. Criminalizing drug use is simply head in the sand politics and has exacerbated the problem ten thousand fold.

Long way to go but every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

Most countries have had methadone & needle exchange programs for years, the health benefits are instant and huge. Guess the US (or most states) held out doing it for so long because it would of had to much of a negative effect on the 'prison industrial complex'.

lol, I remember back in the 90's in Australia, our ultra conservative government decided it was actually going to allow addicts to be treated with her oin, which would have been a brilliant policy. Crime rates would of had a massive drop and it would have been a massive blow to organized crime.

But then the good old US of A sent some bad arse diplomat (or full on war negotiator, lol) to Australia and made it clear that if the policy went ahead, then they would do everything in there power to shut down Australia's billion dollar legal poppy industry. Obviously, it put an end to that idea, right there and then.

I am for decriminalization.
I am for education to prevent addiction.
I am against spending tax dollars on the results of people's poor decisions.

Another chip away at the war on drugs. Good stuff. Criminalizing addiction was one of the worst things that our government has ever done. It's about time that people are recognizing that marijuana isn't the only drug that has been lied about from our government. All of them have. Not to say that all are as good as marijuana, but the government has clearly over demonized all illegal drugs to the point of ridiculousness then backs that hyperbole up with awful criminal convictions.

a reply to: butcherguy

But your just thinking in the short term, which is actually costing you far more. If they just give addicts clean needles now and provide them with a drug that in reality costs cents to produce. Then it will have a major cost saving effect in the long run.

Your tax dollars won't have to be wasted on treating them for the diseases they catch from sharing needles and all the money that goes on arresting them when they commit crimes to get there fix.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

No.
I am thinking complete term.
It isn't the job of the government to take care of your body or my body. That is my opinion.
You want to inject heroin, go right ahead. I don't owe you the heroin, a needle, the spoon, candle or hospital treatment for addiction... or the common cold, for that matter.
The perceived need for half of the population to pay for everyone's desire to stay alive for as long as possible is what has driven health care costs so high.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, but whether you agree with free healthcare or not is kind of irrelevant. Since the issue in your first post wasabout your tax dollars being spent on it, but as it stands far more of your tax dollars end up being spent on dealing with these people, than if you had of dealt with the issue to start with. Not to mention all the negative social problems that come with not dealing with it before it becomes a problem.

Kind of seems a little illogical and vindictive that you would prefer to pay out more in the end, just so you can have the satisfaction of saying there's 'officially' no free healthcare in the US.

I would have thought the lesser of the two evils would be preferred. But then again, its not logical to look for logic when it comes to extremist views I suppose.

Here is a little info that helps explain why it is a good idea...although it is from 98 the premise still works.

caps.ucsf.edu...

and a few more...

www.publichealthmdc.com...

aidscience.org...

So I guess to some this just looks like giving drug user's a way to shoot dope, but from those who see this problem and what comes with it see it as a good thing...and I am obliged to see it the way they do as a good thing, because a user will do what he needs to get the fix and even use dirty needles if need be.

Well, the thing is---Kentucky didn't really have a heroin problem until recently. Something that all media attention in the MSM conveniently ignore is the fact that the heroin problem was created when the legislature closed down "pill mills" where folks were getting scripts for pain medication. That pain medication was legal and controlled. The patients knew what they were getting. Then came the legislature and said, "NO, this has to stop." and passed legislation despite warnings that the addicts being supplied by those pill mills would turn to illegal substances to compensate.
Talk about the law of unintended consequences---the OD rate from heroin skyrocketed. After all, the US government is prospering from the poppy fields in Afghanistan, the source of the heroin involved in the OD deaths.
Now they are dancing around like they have done something significant.
What they can't seem to admit is that this issue is a medical issue, not a political one so 99% of the legislators aren't qualified to make decisions on medical issues.
The legislature got the pill mills closed---shutting off access to actual medical treatment---and since they couldn't get a legal fix, they turned to heroin. Heroin has no quality control so hundreds of them have died in the past 3 years or so. In most cases, it was the medical profession who had prescribed the pain pills in the first place.
Anyone who believed this is a "culture shift" has been living under a rock for the past decade. This is political posturing, nothing more by folks at huffington post.
My estimate would be that about 95% of those who have turned to heroin were first introduced to the these mind-altering substances by mainstream medicine. When the legislature shut off their source, they had to turn to the streets for a medical problem. Mainstream medicine needs to step up here and hold Big Pharma accountable for their products. But what fool would kill the goose laying all those golden eggs?
Here's a look at what the case the Attorney General of Kentucky has filed against Purdue over Oxycontin and the methods Purdue used to promote their "miracle" drug. www.bloomberg.com...

With the advent of Obamacare it is now insurance companies and politicians who decide your medical care.
Yeah, just sit there and let that sink in for a bit....

Here is another little thing I found about what it costs to house an inmate in the jails for a year in Kentucky...

www.lrc.ky.gov...

Here's another article discussing the facts of needle giving...

sfaf.org...

There is so much info put there that runs on both sides of this debate that will not make some happy, but I do think they would be more happy knowing that a heroin user isn't getting any diseases that in the end run we taxpayers will be paying for their medical bills.

It's really a hard way to live being addicted to Heroin.

a reply to: diggindirt

Well, the thing is---Kentucky didn't really have a heroin problem until recently.

Well the dealers just want to get in on the ground floor so that later on they can get the penthouse.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, but whether you agree with free healthcare or not is kind of irrelevant. Since the issue in your first post wasabout your tax dollars being spent on it, but as it stands far more of your tax dollars end up being spent on dealing with these people, than if you had of dealt with the issue to start with. Not to mention all the negative social problems that come with not dealing with it before it becomes a problem.

Kind of seems a little illogical and vindictive that you would prefer to pay out more in the end, just so you can have the satisfaction of saying there's 'officially' no free healthcare in the US.

I would have thought the lesser of the two evils would be preferred. But then again, its not logical to look for logic when it comes to extremist views I suppose.

Did you read my first post?
The first issue was legality.
The second addresses spending government money on education so that we have less morons that think it is advantageous to shoot heroin.
I addressed my feelings about Healthcare in the last line.
I kept it simple and you still got it wrong.

You came back with the standard story about how it will save money in the long run to spend money on morons.
My position is that it is wasted money.
Caring for one's brother is a Christian thing. Why should I be forced to pay for another's stupidity?
Should tax dollars pay for the medical bills of a drunk driver when he is injured because he chose to drive drunk?
Should tax dollars pay for a new house when a smoker falls asleep and burns his house down?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, but whether you agree with free healthcare or not is kind of irrelevant. Since the issue in your first post wasabout your tax dollars being spent on it, but as it stands far more of your tax dollars end up being spent on dealing with these people, than if you had of dealt with the issue to start with. Not to mention all the negative social problems that come with not dealing with it before it becomes a problem.

Kind of seems a little illogical and vindictive that you would prefer to pay out more in the end, just so you can have the satisfaction of saying there's 'officially' no free healthcare in the US.

I would have thought the lesser of the two evils would be preferred. But then again, its not logical to look for logic when it comes to extremist views I suppose.

Should tax dollars pay for the medical bills of a drunk driver when he is injured because he chose to drive drunk?

Well they do as it stands, they don't just let him bleed out in the street if he can't pay his hospital bill. So it's kind of a irreverent question. That's my whole point, if they had of treated that alcoholic with government funded benzodiazepines or whatever, before he went and created havoc on the road, then wouldn't it have ended up being much cheaper in the long run and much safer for the community as a whole?

There's nothing wrong with education either, as long as its actual education and not all out propaganda and scare tactics, which simply don't work. Do they still waste all that money on the flawed dare program? Fact is, the reason people get themselves addicted to these very dangerous drugs is far more complex than just being an uneducated moron. Hard drug abuse knows no bounds when it comes to social status and just saying its there own fault and they can rot, does nothing but make the problem worse, which somebody is going to have pay though the nose to fix eventually.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I isn't irrelevant when you take into account that I don't believe that tax dollars should pay for anyone's medical bills.
Maybe if we didn't take care of all the potential Darwin award recipients cradle to grave they would have some incentive to stop doing stupid crap.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: diggindirt

Well, the thing is---Kentucky didn't really have a heroin problem until recently.

Well the dealers just want to get in on the ground floor so that later on they can get the penthouse.

I'm thinking, as always, that the government doesn't like competition. Reports are that the shipments arrive in Cincy aboard government planes originating out of the DC area. Go to have a market for all that Afghan produce.

originally posted by: DAVID64
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Success may ultimately hinge on the state’s medical community and court system. The new law says nothing about the state's drug courts, which refuse to allow defendants to take Suboxone or methadone -- a stance that is now at odds with federal policy. Attorneys in Kentucky recently filed a federal lawsuit against the state and its drug courts over the anti-medication rule.

“When they leave the hospital, where does it go from there? There’s no hook for treatment. There’s no intervention. We wanted to partner with community mental health centers and other providers to offer that,” Tilley explained. “It’s sort of based on the model of rape crisis services and victim advocates and the role they play.”

To be clear, KY has methadone clinics. When they are released from a hospital they can continue treatment. I believe what they might be talking about is those who are arrested for possession rather than overdose and what options they have while in custody/jail. But the quotes made it seem like there were no methadone programs available for those who overdosed and left the hospital after not being charged with a crime. That isn't the case.

a reply to: DAVID64

According to the highest law in the land the Constitution all drugs should be legal. The war on drugs is illegal to it's core. Understand what freedom really is and you will see most laws are actually illegal.



The founding fathers understood a very simple concept......You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on anothers right to do the same.

a reply to: DAVID64

I know that in the short-term, needle exchanges and the naloxone kits seem like a good idea but.... Having been around a lot of heroin users, and addicts in general over the past four years, I really have to say that it almost seems like it enables people who struggle. I know firsthand people who used the exchanges and had N-kits but still died anyways. When someone is seriously dope-sick, the furthest thing from their mind is a clean needle anyways.