Provision of intervention kit

Prevent Myth

Primun non nocere

Social concern

Addiction & data

Key legal concepts on drug harm reduction

Lethality ratio of lhetal doses / average dose

small flip-top water bottle to add some 0 05 cc water drops onto drug powder in cookers & clean injection syringes by back load rinsing

myth:

most future offenders can be identified in early childhood.

self-harm risks, self harm (responsibility)

social environment (stigmatization), system of interest (organized crime)

risk = vulnerability x product x exposition

exposition = concentration x time x area of contact (or volume of entry)

numbers may support any ambition, but are required for showing that you can measure and focus on evidence and means

make a difference between soft & hard drug (but providers interest try to confuse that when norms & rules try to care)

less than 10 (very dangerous): heroin intravenous, nutmeg (oral) datura (oral), isobutyl nitrite (inhaled) GHB (oral)

preparation syringe: ancillary equipment not used for injecting

myth:

child abuse and neglect inevitably lead to violent behavior later in life.

difficulty to control pulsions harm risk to other: 1) behavioral (aggressive or to obtain mean) 2) indirect: client of system of interest

reduce public space deaths or disturbance, restrict governance threats and government instability

definitions of substance use disorders do not easily translate & embrace other aspects

of social environment

make a difference be-tween consumers on a individual basis & pushers from the market of interest (on quantities carried)

between 10 - 20

dextrometorphan (oral) alcohol (oral) cocaine (intranasal) MDMA (oral) codeine (oral)

sterile filter attached to preparation syringe eliminates the need for cotton or cigarette filters.

myth:

any minorities youths are more likely to become involved in violence than other racial or ethnic groups.

if you mind to detox yourself do not make it alone

care especially alcohol (+++) cocaine/ crack (mood), tobacco (difficult), diet

reduce infectious risks and costs of treatment for worse illnesses

HIV under control in addict population 1 - 3%

what is relevant is the capacity to use them with good purpose & open mindedness on other interpretations

disposal of substitutive treatment (& even tolerance for self-controlled users)

between 20 - 50

mescaline (oral), rohypnol (oral) ketamine (oral) dimethyltryptamine (oral)

cooker

myth:

a new, violent breed of young super predators threatens the ...

health professionals ,GP, should not feel pressure to prescribe when assessment, examinations, investigations have been completed

taxes and reduction of costs from cooperation issues

harm reduction program in Switzerland in the 90' halved by 2, deaths from drug as well as death from AIDS in IV addicts

responsibility or formal/informal helpers

(community - professionals - friends)

between 50 - 1000

kava kava (oral), nitrous oxide (inhaled)

bottle of alcohol sanitizer

cotton or gauze

myth:

getting tough with juvenile offenders by trying them in adult criminal courts reduces the likelihood that they will commit more crimes.

Drug practical classification

I drug & no medical interest

II drug despite some medical interested;

harm reductionism ambiguous prohibitionism / differenciate level / barriers to entry & care

a survey may not be able to gauge all risks for

example mid- or long-term problems still unknown

responsibility of consumer (occasional) & abuser (to mix with their involvement in economic system involvement)

1000 or more: psilocybin (oral) LSD (oral) cannabis (oral)

preservatives

(just one, with lubriquant)

myth:

most violent youths will end up being arrested for a violent crime.

III good medical use & few drug inconvenient

IV only good medical use

"Not In My Back Yard" paradox: prohibitionism but just when applied by other or socially tolerant except when really concerned

complicated to integrate variety of registers somatic - psychologic - social of the patient - social for public safety - legal

caring for balance between public & individual risks, tougthness of market means & individual rights

average doses toxicity does not prejudge clearly of mismanagement of doses, of turning dumb or anxiety does not clearly result in easy to assess lethality or of your values

small repertory of vital

directions (phone card ?)

myth:

weapons-related injuries in schools have increased dramatically in the last .. years.

(remain stable in proportion)

above classification defines policy of delivery but more complication: free delivery & ambiguous effects of licit drugs

best evidence may not succeed to convince

best evidence not necessarily makes best policies

ESPAD (2003) next in terms of awareness are ecstasy (83 %) and amphetamines (66 %)

special consideration on adverse effects, externalities and feasibility of programs

average dose toxicity does not prejudge clearly of other environmental risks (rape, violence, unsafe management, etc.)

selecting participants on the basis of neighborhood residence

myth:

most violent youths will end up being arrested for a violent crime. (most will not)

detoxification: be aware of option of care & limits or adverse effects

concern for standards on good manners in society

ESPAD (2003) equally well known are cocaine and heroin (91 % each)

worthiness of harm-reduction programs including cost benefits analysis

Lancet drugs' harm index 2007

less than 3.5: khat, alkyl nitrates (poppers), ecstasy, steroids

small group sessions to facilitate detailed demonstrations and discussions of injection practices

myth:

cannabis is less harmful than tobacco

(similar out nicotine)

preparation: joint & combine the chance for a good probability of effective action (control or withdrawal) - risks are more important with hard transitions

prohibitionism: reduce crime on goods and properties,reduce crime on persons, violence

1/5 - 1/3 of inmates under drug effect at crime's moment.

ESPAD (2003) 92 % of students admitted that they had heard of marijuana and hashish

definitions of ways for "segregation" virtual or physical: places, people, types, quantities, market means for fight

Lancet drugs' harm index 2007

3.5 - 5: LSD, solvents, cannabis, tobacco, amphetamine

conducting sessions at community centers close to where they live and engage in daily activities

myth: it is not few alcohol which is associated with vascular protection (but no more than 2 drinks/unit is an appropriate goal for those that cannot stop completelly (while some must)

decision: all yours but mind as in life that cope with a problem if solution or mean you have

market policy means: reduce demand, restrict supply

evidence may not mean that any will agreed to behave as evidence: test oneself make part of freeness

complexity of the problems as well as of national policies compared to neighboring

countries

Lancet drugs' harm index 2007

5 - 6 : benzodiazepines, ketamine, alcohol, methadone

offering substantial monetary

compensation when training, make it also sensible (assess)

myth:

free will or lonesome will for withdrawal

stabilization: street business is not driven to help you in that but to push you: concentration of drugs, rapid producing dependence drug, etcetera

social welfare & concept of society - morality - basic rights - representation of human care - sovereignty -

duty of economy of information (not too much inflated, mis-managed information kills itself).

public opinion and ambiguities of policies making too prohibitionist not so and tolerant in appearance.

Lancet drugs' harm index

2007, mixed index) more than 6 : barbiturates, cocaine, heroin