Free crack pipes

[HarleyDog]

I don't understand this at all. Isn't crack illegal? Using tax dollars to enable addiction seems insane. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-the-biden-admin-is-handing-out-free-crack-pipes/ar-AATE0r8?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:The Biden administration will provide grant funding to pay for the distribution of safe smoking kits as part of efforts to reduce harm from substance abuse over the next three years.


A number of conservative news outlets reported in recent days that the administration would fund the distribution of crack pipes for drug users as part of a push to advance racial equality.

However, safe smoking kits are just one piece of equipment on a list of 20 items the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) outlined on the grant application for its harm reduction program. The primary purpose of the program to reduce the risk of infection among drug users.


The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of the HHS, issued a Notice of Funding for the 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant on December 8, 2021.

The deadline for applications was February 7, 2022—which may explain why it has been the subject of recent reports.
The 75-page application, which is still available to read online, explains that eligible applicants for the grant include state, local and tribal governments, as well as tribal organizations and community-based organizations, among others.

"The purpose of the program is to support community-based overdose prevention programs, syringe services programs, and other harm reduction services," the document said.


The funding will be used for prevention activities to "help control the spread of infectious diseases and the consequences of such diseases for individuals with, or at risk of developing substance use disorders (SUD)."
One of the requirements for recipients of grant funding is to purchase "equipment and supplies to enhance harm reduction efforts." The application lists 20 examples.

These includes the "Safe smoking kits/supplies" that have been the focus of some recent articles regarding crack pipes. Other items on the list were infectious disease testing kits, safe-sex kits, including PrEP resources and condoms, syringes "to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases" and screening for infectious diseases.

Though the overall purpose of the program is harm reduction and not racial equality, applicants who are granted funding will "be expected to develop a behavioral health disparity impact statement no later than 60 days" after the funding is awarded.
One part of this impact statement is showing the number of people who will be served during the grant period and identify under-resourced populations such as racial, sexual, gender and ethnic minority groups.

"The priority populations for this program are underserved communities that are greatly impacted by SUD [substance use disorders]," the HHS document said and went on to say that underserved communities are defined by Executive Order 13985.

In that executive order, issued on January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden said that "the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality."

The HHS document estimated that a total of just over $29 million in funding would be available over a three year period and awards of grant funding should be made from May 15, 2022.

Newsweek has asked the Department of Health and Human Services for comment.

[SunsetBengal]

Literally nobody:

The Government: Please go back to smoking crack..

[NATI BENGALS]

I thought this administration wasn’t going to do the nepotism thing. Sounds like a Hunter project?

I just can’t get behind supplying dope fiends with the tools to use more dope. So they don’t get herpes sharing a crack pipe? Wtf

[HarleyDog]

(02-09-2022, 01:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought this administration wasn’t going to do the nepotism thing. Sounds like a Hunter project?

I just can’t get behind supplying dope fiends with the tools to use more dope. So they don’t get herpes sharing a crack pipe? Wtf

I can get behind more education and helping addicts rehab. Yet this is counterproductive. I don't think Hunter has anything to do with this but I'm sure people will relate the two. Also, the 2nd sentence of the article is offensive. Using this to advance racial equality is implying the majority of the crack addicts are minorities. Or at least that's the way some could take it.

[CJD]

Let's imagine a person. They have a desire to do crack.

Do you think that person who wants to do crack will say "hey, I would love to do crack, but I don't have a proper crack pipe. I guess I won't do crack."?
Or do you think that person is more likely to say "I would love to do crack, but I don't have a proper crack pipe. I guess I will do crack, but in a less safe manner."?

Let's imagine a second person. They do not have a desire to do crack.

Do you think that person who does not want to do crack will say "hey, I don't want to do crack, but I was given this perfectly useable and safe crack pipe...so I guess I'm doing crack now!"?

Or do you think that person is more likely to say " I don't want to do crack, so the presence or absence of a proper crack pipe has no bearing on my desire to do crack."?

I see this as a no harm, potential help scenario. If people are going to do crack, I'd rather they not die/get diseases from it and I think this is probably a step towards protecting those people.

If someone isn't willing to rehabilitate, at least they can be given the resources not to further endanger themselves while engaging in drug use.

I see it as the same basic tenet of ambulance drivers carrying Narcan. You could interpret that as a government endorsement of people ODing, or you could see it as an acknowledgement that people are going to OD, so it's better to have a way to save them than not have a way to save them.

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 02:01 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I can get behind more education and helping addicts rehab. Yet this is counterproductive. I don't think Hunter has anything to do with this but I'm sure people will relate the two. Also, the 2nd sentence of the article is offensive. Using this to advance racial equality is implying the majority of the crack addicts are minorities. Or at least that's the way some could take it.

I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. Crack was used disproportionately by black people in the 70s and 80s and, while the divide isn't as clear cut today (likely because of the stigma of Crack in black neighborhoods due to what occurred in the 70s/80s), black people were definitely the target when Crack was first created. Crack was more prolific in black neighborhoods because black neighborhoods, especially at the beginning of the War on Drugs (Started by Nixon as an explicit means to punish black people and protestors), were disproportionately more poor than white neighborhoods. Crack is cheaper to make because it's essentially impure cocaine. And then, after crack was distributed throughout black neighborhoods, the penalty for possessing crack was made orders of magnitude greater than the penalty for possessing cocaine. There are conspiracy theories that government operatives literally pushed crack in black neighborhoods in order to jail them for it. I don't know if that has ever been substantiated but, given the War on Drugs explicitly targeting black people, I think that conspiracy theory is on the more "believable" side of the spectrum.

[basballguy]

(02-09-2022, 02:11 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Let's imagine a person. They have a desire to do crack.

Do you think that person who wants to do crack will say "hey, I would love to do crack, but I don't have a proper crack pipe. I guess I won't do crack."?
Or do you think that person is more likely to say "I would love to do crack, but I don't have a proper crack pipe. I guess I will do crack, but in a less safe manner."?

Let's imagine a second person. They do not have a desire to do crack.

Do you think that person who does not want to do crack will say "hey, I don't want to do crack, but I was given this perfectly useable and safe crack pipe...so I guess I'm doing crack now!"?

Or do you think that person is more likely to say " I don't want to do crack, so the presence or absence of a proper crack pipe has no bearing on my desire to do crack."?

I see this as a no harm, potential help scenario. If people are going to do crack, I'd rather they not die/get diseases from it and I think this is probably a step towards protecting those people.

If someone isn't willing to rehabilitate, at least they can be given the resources not to further endanger themselves while engaging in drug use.

I see it as the same basic tenet of ambulance drivers carrying Narcan. You could interpret that as a government endorsement of people ODing, or you could see it as an acknowledgement that people are going to OD, so it's better to have a way to save them than not have a way to save them.

The thing is, if the policy making was consistent, there would be less outrage over it.  

"We don't care what you do to your body, so you might as well do it safely"...but when it comes to Covid "Dude you gotta manage your body the way we see fit".  

[HarleyDog]

(02-09-2022, 02:11 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I see this as a no harm, potential help scenario. If people are going to do crack, I'd rather they not die/get diseases from it and I think this is probably a step towards protecting those people.

Protect or enable or both? It's mismanagement of taxpayer money. 

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 02:43 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Protect or enable or both? It's mismanagement of taxpayer money. 

If we're looking to lower the mismanagement of tax payer money, there are a lot of bigger fish to go after before this program.

[XenoMorph]

Wow... I really expected this to just be a picture of old car antenna... Im pretty sure thats why my Antenna was stolen...

This administration can not end soon enough

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 02:27 PM)basballguy Wrote: The thing is, if the policy making was consistent, there would be less outrage over it.  

"We don't care what you do to your body, so you might as well do it safely"...but when it comes to Covid "Dude you gotta manage your body the way we see fit".  

I mean...you know this is a false equivalency, right? Or are you just trying to bait me into writing up a paragraph about how refusal to get a COVID vaccine is a public health issue more so than a personal choice issue?

[basballguy]

(02-09-2022, 02:47 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I mean...you know this is a false equivalency, right? Or are you just trying to bait me into writing up a paragraph about how refusal to get a COVID vaccine is a public health issue more so than a personal choice issue?

i can assure you, although not a "health" crisis, a homeless dude on crack (or a variety of other drugs) is a public safety crisis and it's the same thing.  

Mildly related...calling it a false equivalency made me giggle and think about Chiefs fans and their "false" loss.  

Quick Edit: The reason i bring up the homeless aspect of this is because homeless people are often the primary target of programs like these.

[Millhouse]

The optics of this dont look good by any means. Not to mention it addresses the drug problem in the U.S. about as much as handing out a few thousand masks to help stop the spread of Covid.

Honestly though, I could care less. Our country for over 40 years now has waged a massive war on drugs and failed on all fronts. And in terms of funding this program with taxpayers money, pffft it's nothing one of the agencies can't make back by striking a deal with a cartel somewhere on a seizure while keeping a blind eye to the rest of it crossing over.

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 02:50 PM)basballguy Wrote: i can assure you, although not a "health" crisis, a homeless dude on crack (or a variety of other drugs) is a public safety crisis and it's the same thing.  

Mildly related...calling it a false equivalency made me giggle and think about Chiefs fans and their "false" loss.  

Quick Edit:  The reason i bring up the homeless aspect of this is because homeless people are often the primary target of programs like these.

Why do you believe that the crack pipe provided by the government increases the number of homeless dudes on crack?

[basballguy]

(02-09-2022, 02:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Why do you believe that the crack pipe provided by the government increases the number of homeless dudes on crack?

That's going to be the hill you die on for this argument?  Whether or not it increases the number?  You're smarter than that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Handing out needles to IV drug users makes sense as it absolutely helps prevent the spread of blood borne diseases. Handing out crack pipes? I'm not sure what the public health benefit of that could be. A crack pipe is literally just a glass tube. Sharing one is no more likely to spread disease than sharing a cigarette or a drink with someone. Granted, I wouldn't be eager to do either with a crack addict, but I have a feeling they aren't as picky as I am.

[HarleyDog]

(02-09-2022, 02:26 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:  Crack was more prolific in black neighborhoods because black neighborhoods, especially at the beginning of the War on Drugs (Started by Nixon as an explicit means to punish black people and protestors), were disproportionately more poor than white neighborhoods. Crack is cheaper to make because it's essentially impure cocaine. And then, after crack was distributed throughout black neighborhoods, the penalty for possessing crack was made orders of magnitude greater than the penalty for possessing cocaine. There are conspiracy theories that government operatives literally pushed crack in black neighborhoods in order to jail them for it. 

Why is this any different? possession of a crack pipe is against the law. Therefore, the government is handling out illegal drug paraphernalia that will land some people behind bars.

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 03:02 PM)basballguy Wrote: That's going to be the hill you die on for this argument?  Whether or not it increases the number?  You're smarter than that.

I'm not dying on any hill, really. I personally don't think this program is a big deal. I think it has the potential to help some people and I am not convinced it would influence anyone who doesn't already want to do crack from doing crack.

You were the one comparing it to vaccines.

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 03:17 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Why is this any different? possession of a crack pipe is against the law. Therefore, the government is handling out illegal drug paraphernalia that will land some people behind bars.

So are you conceding that it isn't offensive that this is referenced as a form of racial justice? Or are you just changing the subject unintentionally?

[CJD]

(02-09-2022, 03:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Handing out needles to IV drug users makes sense as it absolutely helps prevent the spread of blood borne diseases.  Handing out crack pipes?  I'm not sure what the public health benefit of that could be.  A crack pipe is literally just a glass tube.  Sharing one is no more likely to spread disease than sharing a cigarette or a drink with someone.  Granted, I wouldn't be eager to do either with a crack addict, but I have a feeling they aren't as picky as I am.

Yea, that's what I'm not 100% clear on either. I know about the need for clean needles to prevent transmission of diseases, but crack pipes I'm a bit more unsure of.