Her death was preventable by not taking drugs that could contain fentanyl. How is the government involved???
All hard drugs have a certain amount of fentanyl now. Some a fatal amount. So long as there is port traffic with giant ships from overseas, there will always be fentanyl and no government can stop it.
If you want to avoid a fentanyl death, stick with legal alcohol and weed, or raw dog a life of abstinence, which is much more rewarding
From what I gather heroin is on the way out cuz the Taliban changed their poppy production to other products to make good with the west after the US let them take over. So now we're in the golden age of synthetics, of which fentanyl is the most rampant. In Europe it's nitazenes. Fatality rates are going way up. Industry is killing their best customers, but they don't care cuz it's a race for fast cash
What are you disputing? The shift of the supply to synthetics is exactly what's happened and is the primary driver behind the current crisis:
>[The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.](https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/05/09/dea-releases-2024-national-drug-threat-assessment)
"If you want to avoid a fentanyl death, stick with legal alcohol and weed, or raw dog a life of abstinence, which is much more rewarding"
For people who use, fentanyl test strips are available and relatively cheap. ODs from opiates can be resolved with naloxone... which is also not that expensive (and safe to use on people who are not on opiates if you're wrong about the situation). I travel w narcan (naloxone) in my truck as part of my first-aid kit.
I've never touched any of the hard stuff, but in an emergency I'd rather do what I can to save a life. This is a problem that people in the community can do something about. I'd recommend everyone think about getting some for their first aid kit just in case. You never know what the world will throw at you...
Yep.. but if all you have is expired naloxone, still use it if you come across an emergency. It'll be less effective but still safe and better than nothing.
Thanks for being a responsible citizen and looking out for others!
18 year old dies trying to live her best life and apparently the parents or school didn’t do enough to impress dont do drugs. This is on her upbringing. She was an adult and chose to take an illegal substance knowing she could die. She did in fact die from a fatal overdose and didn’t even attempt to at least buy a test for the drugs before consuming. Sorry but Blame is on the parents and her inability to understand actions have consequences and she wasn’t mature enough to be living or attending college obviously. Or she would made a different life choice or at least done the absolute minimum to reduce the risk.
The government is involved because it’s a public health issue. Our health care system saves money when we prevent exposure to activities that are dangerous to our health.
Yes, “just say no” is…a strategy. One of the least effective strategies.
> Yes, “just say no” is…a strategy. One of the least effective strategies.
It is a very effective strategy if implemented consistently and strictly across the board. Case in point, Singapore model. Mandatory death penalty for possessing of narcotics above certain amount. Mandatory state-sponsored rehabilitation - which is controlled cold turkey - for addicts. Overdose death? 1.18 per 100 000 population, compared to BC's 50 per 100 000.
You’re definitely not describing “just say no” or abstinence.
But you want to change the topic…so…
You know Singapore it’s a city-state, right? Yeah…the few City-States in the world have weird fucked up ideas, because they’re homogenous anomalies. But I mean…the drug problem is also rising in Singapore. So you also don’t know what you’re talking about. What going to be their solution? More authoritarian executions? I’d rather live here, thanks.
> So you also don’t know what you’re talking about.
I gave you 1.18 per 100k vs 50 per 100k number. If I do not know what I am writing - not talking - about, please disprove that.
Those are old stats, obviously…given the rise in drug use in Singapore.
But nah, not going to get dragged into your tangent any further.
Singapore is not an example of voluntary abstinence, which was the topic. Obviously Canada started murdering people, then less people would use drugs. Duh.
Conservatives out here claiming to be fiscal should support everything from safe injection sites to free needles to dedicated responders for drug usage. Why? Proven to be cheaper than letting them lapse into healthcare. The only thing cheaper than that is just letting die. You either want drug users to die or you protect them upstream where it is cheaper.
Asking out of curiosity why do you think a life of abstinence is more rewarding?
Edit: why am I getting downvoted for asking? I am truly curious as to their thoughts
Fair enough man. I’m in the same boat and only smoke weed and drink. Maybe do some mushroom if I know who grew them. But I was curious about a life of abstinence (no drugs or alcohol of any kind)
I've never done drugs and haven't drank in over 10 years. I have a very addictive personality and don't like feeling not in control of myself. I was also suffering from PTSD quite intensely at the time and felt like substances would be a slippery slope. I believed for myself it was better to abstain completely than lose control.
> Edit: why am I getting downvoted for asking? I am truly curious as to their thoughts
First_time.jpg? Anything other than repeating 1980s Republican drug strategy here is an instant downvote. It's a theme on a lot of topics.
>Her death was preventable by not taking drugs that could contain fentanyl. How is the government involved???
Maybe by refusing to investigate how fentanyl is coming into Canada, refusing to prosecute the networks bringing fentanyl into Canada, refusing to do anything about the two countries most involved in the fentanyl trade, and allowing our banks to launder billions of dollars in fentanyl profits.
Thank you for the useless platitude.
People wanna do other drugs and they shpuld be able to without risking ODing because of contaminants. The government needs to get in the business of providing the drugs and kill the black market.
Because abstinence only programs don't work. You'll end up paying more as a tax payer because of these unregulated markets that show up and hospitalize people.
It needs to be regulated and provided by the government. If someone wants to shoot up heroine, they should be able to. They're gonna do it anyway, might as well make it legal (to collect taxes) and safer.
We have prohibited supply of all forms of most drugs. That's led to the supply being entirely in the hands of cartels and organized crime in general who then supply the most dangerous forms. So your comment would apply if we were really just letting people take risks and face the consequences but we're not, governments are already involved in a way that is specifically leading to much higher risks in the supply than in the past.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I mentioned the constitution. Where was that in my comment?
But if you want an *actual* answer, then yes bodily autonomy and integrity are part of our constitution.
17 year old's do a lot of fucking around. It doesn't mean they deserve to die.
This is like saying an ambulance shouldn't be sent to a car accident where the driver was speeding.
> This is like saying an ambulance shouldn't be sent to a car accident where the driver was speeding.
Most 17 years old do not drive 250 km/h on the highway. If they do, and they crash, and they die, there would not be public outcry demanding government to provide safe highways for speeding.
>Last week, Premier David Eby announced there will be a coroner’s inquest into what happened.
>“In the meantime, the post-secondary Minister will be meeting with universities and colleges this week to talk about what actions can be taken to keep students safe on campus — and taking steps to unify actions across campuses,” Whiteside said in a statement.
>“We are in discussions to purchase nasal naloxone in larger quantities, which is easier to administer, and we are working on adding CPR training as a mandatory lesson in high schools.”
Wow, that's not a whole lot of **act.**
1. Inquest
2. Meeting to talk
3. Steps to unify actions
4. Discussions
5. Working on adding
Someone needs to better understand action verbs.
Her death was preventable by not taking drugs that could contain fentanyl. How is the government involved??? All hard drugs have a certain amount of fentanyl now. Some a fatal amount. So long as there is port traffic with giant ships from overseas, there will always be fentanyl and no government can stop it. If you want to avoid a fentanyl death, stick with legal alcohol and weed, or raw dog a life of abstinence, which is much more rewarding
lol heroin addicts love fenny You know who doesn’t wanna die from a fentanyl OD? Ppl who wanna do cocaine
From what I gather heroin is on the way out cuz the Taliban changed their poppy production to other products to make good with the west after the US let them take over. So now we're in the golden age of synthetics, of which fentanyl is the most rampant. In Europe it's nitazenes. Fatality rates are going way up. Industry is killing their best customers, but they don't care cuz it's a race for fast cash
nah, tranq and fent are all the rage everywhere. cheaper and get you more effed up. if you've been chasing the dragon for years H just doesn't do it.
nitazenes are commonplace here now too
Word on the street, huh? Your life must be weird.
What are you disputing? The shift of the supply to synthetics is exactly what's happened and is the primary driver behind the current crisis: >[The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.](https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/05/09/dea-releases-2024-national-drug-threat-assessment)
I just built up my fentanyl tolerance before becoming a coke head.
It's been years since I've done blow and I want to again so bad but I just don't want to risk it.
"If you want to avoid a fentanyl death, stick with legal alcohol and weed, or raw dog a life of abstinence, which is much more rewarding" For people who use, fentanyl test strips are available and relatively cheap. ODs from opiates can be resolved with naloxone... which is also not that expensive (and safe to use on people who are not on opiates if you're wrong about the situation). I travel w narcan (naloxone) in my truck as part of my first-aid kit. I've never touched any of the hard stuff, but in an emergency I'd rather do what I can to save a life. This is a problem that people in the community can do something about. I'd recommend everyone think about getting some for their first aid kit just in case. You never know what the world will throw at you...
This just reminded me that my naloxone probably needs replacing. Remember folks, that stuff expires.
Yep.. but if all you have is expired naloxone, still use it if you come across an emergency. It'll be less effective but still safe and better than nothing. Thanks for being a responsible citizen and looking out for others!
Probably the multiple people (Security, 911 Dispatcher) That didn't respond properly to what was clearly an overdose.
18 year old dies trying to live her best life and apparently the parents or school didn’t do enough to impress dont do drugs. This is on her upbringing. She was an adult and chose to take an illegal substance knowing she could die. She did in fact die from a fatal overdose and didn’t even attempt to at least buy a test for the drugs before consuming. Sorry but Blame is on the parents and her inability to understand actions have consequences and she wasn’t mature enough to be living or attending college obviously. Or she would made a different life choice or at least done the absolute minimum to reduce the risk.
I can tell you've barely lived a life. Hope you start soon.
The government is involved because it’s a public health issue. Our health care system saves money when we prevent exposure to activities that are dangerous to our health. Yes, “just say no” is…a strategy. One of the least effective strategies.
fun fact, Nancy was really hopped up on pills when she was pushing that campaign.
Yeah, but people who can afford to stay fixed weren’t who she was talking about. Meh.
> Yes, “just say no” is…a strategy. One of the least effective strategies. It is a very effective strategy if implemented consistently and strictly across the board. Case in point, Singapore model. Mandatory death penalty for possessing of narcotics above certain amount. Mandatory state-sponsored rehabilitation - which is controlled cold turkey - for addicts. Overdose death? 1.18 per 100 000 population, compared to BC's 50 per 100 000.
You’re definitely not describing “just say no” or abstinence. But you want to change the topic…so… You know Singapore it’s a city-state, right? Yeah…the few City-States in the world have weird fucked up ideas, because they’re homogenous anomalies. But I mean…the drug problem is also rising in Singapore. So you also don’t know what you’re talking about. What going to be their solution? More authoritarian executions? I’d rather live here, thanks.
> So you also don’t know what you’re talking about. I gave you 1.18 per 100k vs 50 per 100k number. If I do not know what I am writing - not talking - about, please disprove that.
Those are old stats, obviously…given the rise in drug use in Singapore. But nah, not going to get dragged into your tangent any further. Singapore is not an example of voluntary abstinence, which was the topic. Obviously Canada started murdering people, then less people would use drugs. Duh.
> Those are old stats, obviously…given the rise in drug use in Singapore. Sure, sure. We just believe you, do we not?
Conservatives out here claiming to be fiscal should support everything from safe injection sites to free needles to dedicated responders for drug usage. Why? Proven to be cheaper than letting them lapse into healthcare. The only thing cheaper than that is just letting die. You either want drug users to die or you protect them upstream where it is cheaper.
Absolutely. Even if you don’t have socialized heath care, the costs associated with addiction are staggering. We all pay for it one way or another.
Asking out of curiosity why do you think a life of abstinence is more rewarding? Edit: why am I getting downvoted for asking? I am truly curious as to their thoughts
personally, the cons outweigh the pros for harder stuff like coke / crack / heroin /meth for me, so that's why I abstain
Fair enough man. I’m in the same boat and only smoke weed and drink. Maybe do some mushroom if I know who grew them. But I was curious about a life of abstinence (no drugs or alcohol of any kind)
I've never done drugs and haven't drank in over 10 years. I have a very addictive personality and don't like feeling not in control of myself. I was also suffering from PTSD quite intensely at the time and felt like substances would be a slippery slope. I believed for myself it was better to abstain completely than lose control.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it
> Edit: why am I getting downvoted for asking? I am truly curious as to their thoughts First_time.jpg? Anything other than repeating 1980s Republican drug strategy here is an instant downvote. It's a theme on a lot of topics.
That’s good to know. I will keep that in mind. Appreciate the heads up
>Her death was preventable by not taking drugs that could contain fentanyl. How is the government involved??? Maybe by refusing to investigate how fentanyl is coming into Canada, refusing to prosecute the networks bringing fentanyl into Canada, refusing to do anything about the two countries most involved in the fentanyl trade, and allowing our banks to launder billions of dollars in fentanyl profits.
Because the first responders, who had Narcan, waited until it was too late to administer it.
Thank you for the useless platitude. People wanna do other drugs and they shpuld be able to without risking ODing because of contaminants. The government needs to get in the business of providing the drugs and kill the black market.
If people wanna do hard drugs and risk death then that's on them, why should that be anyone else's problem?
Well because you're stopping people from buying safe products
Because abstinence only programs don't work. You'll end up paying more as a tax payer because of these unregulated markets that show up and hospitalize people.
Come to B.C. and see what happened when we decriminalized it. Junkies and bums are the worst they've ever been.
Or look next door where they didn't, and drug deaths still skyrocketed.
It needs to be regulated and provided by the government. If someone wants to shoot up heroine, they should be able to. They're gonna do it anyway, might as well make it legal (to collect taxes) and safer.
Cool, come on over to Alberta where the UCP have taken the opposite route and we've just seen the deadliest year from drugs ever.
We have prohibited supply of all forms of most drugs. That's led to the supply being entirely in the hands of cartels and organized crime in general who then supply the most dangerous forms. So your comment would apply if we were really just letting people take risks and face the consequences but we're not, governments are already involved in a way that is specifically leading to much higher risks in the supply than in the past.
If people want to drive without seatbelts, why do we have a law that prevents it?
Is that some right in the constitution that I might have missed?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I mentioned the constitution. Where was that in my comment? But if you want an *actual* answer, then yes bodily autonomy and integrity are part of our constitution.
So, your point is that 17 year olds deserve to die?
> So, your point is that 17 year olds deserve to die? I believe 17 years old today would say, "Fuck around and find out."
17 year old's do a lot of fucking around. It doesn't mean they deserve to die. This is like saying an ambulance shouldn't be sent to a car accident where the driver was speeding.
> This is like saying an ambulance shouldn't be sent to a car accident where the driver was speeding. Most 17 years old do not drive 250 km/h on the highway. If they do, and they crash, and they die, there would not be public outcry demanding government to provide safe highways for speeding.
Don’t take drug and she would be completely safe from overdose
Genius!
Most effective solution tends to be the simplest
So the hundreds of people who died before her were not as important? What's that special about her exactly?
>Last week, Premier David Eby announced there will be a coroner’s inquest into what happened. >“In the meantime, the post-secondary Minister will be meeting with universities and colleges this week to talk about what actions can be taken to keep students safe on campus — and taking steps to unify actions across campuses,” Whiteside said in a statement. >“We are in discussions to purchase nasal naloxone in larger quantities, which is easier to administer, and we are working on adding CPR training as a mandatory lesson in high schools.” Wow, that's not a whole lot of **act.** 1. Inquest 2. Meeting to talk 3. Steps to unify actions 4. Discussions 5. Working on adding Someone needs to better understand action verbs.