Amazon.com Widgets
  • How's 18 sound?

    I feel like it's the closest we get to any rite of manhood/womanhood (In America). Usually the bonds that tie you to your parents are cut and you go out into the world to decide your own fate whatever that may be. Be cool to have an age limit for no drugs barred at 90 though. Be allowed to use whatever you might want no matter how obviously harmful it may be.

  • How's 90 sound?

    Even regulated items like cigarettes and alcohol are tried by kids younger than legal age. After all, they want to fit in with those who are a bit older/mature. By decreasing the min. Age for even those would expose even younger kids to the influences. I can't imagine what would happen if we got rid of min. Age limits on just those less harmful items. Just think, kids get out of school and spend their lunch money at the bar.
    What is worse, the author of this question want no age limit on very harmful drugs like those that get injected. I look at those street corner drug dealers as scumbags that should be locked up for endangering the lives of not just adult but the kids they get addicted and the author would have them looked at as entrepreneurs for selling crack to middle school kids or even younger? They talked about supervised injection facilities. Tell me, how many teens would take their drug use/abuse public? It's not like only drug addicts will be present so they will see the risk of their secret being relieved. In other words, the vast majority of kids who do those drugs would opt for the alley instead. Another factor is those that did use it would likely be exposed to other drugs. Then lets talk expense. These facilities would need at least one medical person as well as at least one police officer for security. After all, drug addicts are not known to be law abiding. Because drug addicts do drugs whenever they need them, the place would need to be open 24/7. Not sure about other countries but in the U.S. people in the medical community and police have mottoes they go by e.g. "Do no harm." and "To protect and serve." How is a doctor going to openly aid kids in doing harmful drugs going to keep his oath. How are the police protecting when they assist in doing harm?
    Clearly, these highly regulated or existing illegal drugs should not be legally permitted under any age. I think a better policy would be similar to what the President of the Philippines has alleged to do. Have these illegal drug traffickers killed on site or at least rounded up, charged, and given much harsher sentences. For this group, there should be no limit. If they sell drugs to anyone, they should be charged as adults instead of the wrist slap that they get just to go out and do it again. Maybe the older gang members wont be able to recruit kids if the kids know they will be handed adult type sentences. Sure, even these measures may be a hard sell to law makers. After all, it is becoming more politically correct for a kid to smoke pot than an adult to have a cigarette.

  • Noooo wayyyy..... .

    Drugs can help alot of things. They release stress. They make you feel better. People make there own decisions and if it helps them and they want to risk there heath,, let them. Dont choose other peoples life, if you dont agree then dont follow it. Wait or dont. Youchoose!

  • Are you serious?

    People under age 18 who inject drugs represent a population at risk of health and social harms. Age restrictions at harm reduction programmes often formally exclude this population, but the reason behind such restrictions is lacking in the literature. To help fill this gap, we examine the perspectives of people who use drugs and various other stakeholders regarding whether supervised injection facilities (SIFs) should have age restrictions. Methods: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with a total of 95 people who use drugs and 141 other stakeholders (including police, fire and emergency services personnel, other city employees and officials, healthcare providers, residents and business representatives) in two Canadian cities without SIFs. Findings: We highlight the following thematic areas: mixed opinions regarding specific age restrictions; safety as a priority; different experiences and understandings of youth, agency and drug use; and ideas regarding maturity, “help” and other approaches. We note throughout that a familiar vulnerability–agency dichotomy often surfaced in the discussions. Conclusions: This paper contributes new empirical insights regarding youth access to SIFs. We offer considerations that may inform discussions occurring in other jurisdictions debating SIF implementation and may help remove or clarify age-related policies for harm reduction programmes.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.