Causal- pinkmonkey32

Reduce Addiction By Giving out Drugs

Natalie Pechamnn

Let’s give drugs to drug addicts. This idea is one that has become more prevalent in today’s age. As drugs become increasingly more common we are faced with the issues that everyday drug addicts bring: Stealing and pawning items, violence, trash on our streets, and begging. These acts happen the majority of the time when an addict is looking for their next fix and will do anything to get it, so what if we just gave it to them.

In Vancoover canada they have already started implementing these programs to make getting drugs more safe and accessible for addicts. Vancoover is a port which makes it a place where addicts know drugs are coming in and out. This became a big problem in Vancouver and they named this place the “downtown eastside”. In hopes to cut back on the people dead with needles in their arms they opened up “insites”. Insights are, “where addicts could shoot up under the supervision of a nurse and without the fear of being arrested by police. Staff at the Insite center provide the addicts with clean syringes, antiseptic wipes and other instruments.”(taken from “Vancouver Combats Heroin” by Bradly Campbell) Having these safe zones created “healthier” and cleaner drug usage.

At this center a program was started based off of ones seen in european countries. Giving the drug addicts that “had no chance of recovery” heroin as needed that way they wouldnt result to doing things to get drugs. This program was only offered to around 26 people who had tried multiple heroin treatments as well as recovery multiple times and could not kick the habit. One of these addicts in the article “Vancouver combats heroin by giving its addicts the best smack in the world” speaks about how he is able to hold a job now because he no longer needs to search for where his next high is going to come from.

Along with this program there is this idea of aging out of drugs. We mostly think that the more years a drug addict does drugs the harder it is to kick the drug, when in fact evidence shows the opposite. According to “Matters of Substance” by Maia Szalavitz, “if addiction were truly a progressive disease, the data should show that the odds of quitting get worse over time. In fact, they remain the same on an annual basis, which means that, as people get older, a higher and higher percentage wind up in recovery.” With this idea that as you get older more and more addicts recover this article also states that, ”Heroin addictions tend to last as long as alcoholism” (which is around 15 years). Most but not all addicts in fact quit on their own without any facility or outside help. 

If addicts are likely to quit a drug on their own after a certain amount of years, why don’t we put them in these insite facilities and give them their drugs and keep them out of danger and criminal activity until they eventually get bored and quit the drug on their own. Why instead do we pressure addicts into multi step programs and rehab facilities when they are not ready or don’t want to quit the drug?

When you force addicts into mandatory rehab their odds of relapse unfortunately suffer. According to “Is rehab inevitable with forced sobriety?” by Kerry Nenn she states,”They found that almost 50 percent of the mandated patients relapsed within a month of their release, while only 10 percent of voluntary graduates relapsed.” By forcing people who aren’t ready to get help to get help they don’t have the drive or the want to get clean so when given the opportunity they go back to the drug they were on. This causes a waste of resources and time for the facility and the addict. An example of this I find helpful to understand this would be if a man ate a cookie everyday for a few years and suddenly you took that cookie out of stores only for that cookie to return a few months later, that man will buy those cookies that he missed, but if you let that man eat that cookie for a few more years suddenly the man will get sick of that cookie and stop buying it. 

The safety of the drugs that addicts are using is also a questionable topic. Drugs today are often laced with chemicals and other unhealthy substances. Addicts are now shooting these laced drugs into themselves 2-3 times a day. Most overdoses are not caused by the drug itself but by the chemicals added to it. In figure 5 of the article,” Drug Overdose Death Rates” by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, you can see that heroin overdose rates have increased dramatically when including opioids such as fentanyl. If the safety of the addict is what matters most we should be offering them an alternative to their street drugs and giving them clean and pure drugs that can be administered through sterilized needles and with a medical professional present.

If the safety of our people is our biggest concern then that includes addicts. Although we do not want to promote drugs it’s important we offer as many sources for help as we possibly can. By giving addicts their drugs they were keeping them calm and in a state where they don’t feel the need to harm or steal. By giving them the opportunity to use sterilized equipment and clean drugs we are helping ensure they are receiving these drugs in the best way possible for their health, and by not forcing programs and rehab upon these addicts we are giving them the opportunity to want it themselves and work for it when they are ready too.


Bradly Campbell, Vancouver combats heroin by giving its addicts the best smack in the world(2015)

 Maia Szalavitz, Matters of Substance(2014)

Kerry Nenn, Is Relapse Inevitable With Forced Sobriety?(2023)

National Institute of Drug Abuse, Drug Overdose Death Rates(2023)

This entry was posted in Causal Argument, PinkMonkey. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Causal- pinkmonkey32

  1. davidbdale says:

    Computers Need to “Speed Date”
    You spend you Definition Argument making a single, narrow, uncomplicated argument, PinkMonkey, that robots have two settings (introverted and extroverted); so do humans; and that robots that match humans’ needs are more effective. OK. But . . . what if . . . every human can be either introverted or extroverted for a few minutes; humans can modify their behavior to suit the needs of a brief transaction; the BEST outcome for a human/robot interaction is THE ONE THAT SERVES THE HUMAN more than it serves the robot; and THEREFORE, a robot that can behave EITHER as an introvert or as an extrovert DEPENDING ON THE CHOICE the HUMAN would prefer to achieve the best h/r outcome? Such a robot doesn’t have to exist today for you to advocate for its existence. You might disagree about the BEST OUTCOME. If my purpose for using a robot desk clerk, for example, is to PREVENT IMPOSTERS from gaining access to my inner offices, I MIGHT NOT WANT TO SERVE the needs of the visitor who drops by without an appointment hoping to shoot me. See? The BEST robot is the one that GETS WHAT THE PROGRAMMER NEEDS from the human. Right? If the robot has to “be extroverted” to charm the human, or “be introverted” to make the human comfortable, it will need to be programmed to RESPOND to the personality cues of the human with the MOST STRATEGIC personality to ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC OUTCOME. That’s PURELY CAUSAL! Does it help?


  2. pinkmonkey32 says:

    Here is my casual argument on my new topic we spoke about, I will have my new definition argument to you by the end of the week!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s