Utopian and virkelighetsfjern rusvisjon from KrF

Hans Fredrik Grøvan , member of parliament for the christian democratic party has presents in the Newspaper 16. January overdosetala as though historically there is so that ever fewer are dying of heroin, and an increasing number of methadone. This is a villeiande attgiving. Overdose death occurs usually as a result of kombinasjonsbruk with more fabric, the amount of overdose deaths with methadone involved varies, and dødsfalla occurs mainly among those who are outside the LETS-program.

They are often opioid-dependent, a wider substitusjonsprogram be inducted. Whatever led to the introduction of LETS first to stagnering of overdosedødsfalla and in line with the vidareutviklinga of the program we have now finally experienced a begynnande decline.

Innleiingsvis take Grøvan argued that entrepreneurship in school for rusomsorga still must be rusfridom. That the utopian and unreal vision still has a position with Grøvan and This is sad to record, and this attitude largely is, though, that we still have not achieved a satisfactory result in rusomsorgen.

The most opprørande is that Grøvan implicitly defines medicated as if they shall continue in the rapture and thus be given up. If a shall be no longer in the ruspolitiske the debate had been føremålstenleg if politicians show some degree of understanding of the current situation.

When it comes heroinbehandling, is it so that a small group of people with a long-lasting and serious avhengigheit not find the effect of the ordinary LETS-drug, and at the same time we know this is a very vulnerable group. Experience from other countries shows not as Grøvan says, that heroinbehandling krevjar friskare users than the group that is the heaviest narkotikabrukarane electors. No, it is time that we take this group, with a loud dødelegheit more seriously.

Moralisme stands in the way of heroin-assisted treatment Debate

There must be a medical assessment which is the basis for the what kind of drug that is to be used in health care to addicts, as to other patient groups, not a policy based on a nedsettande morality. Every country that has started with a pilot project with heroinklinikkar, then made it into a permanent offer, due to the positive result.

The gong ALLOWS was estimated to be able to help a few hundred people, the vast majority of heavy avhengigheit already utdefinert as potential patients. Rigiditeten was the time corresponding to what we today recognize get countries like Sweden and a number of countries in eastern Europe, where dødelegheita constantly is frightening high. It is therefore wrong to misrepresent the number of users in LETS as a symbol of the unfortunate utgliding in the direction of the Grøvan, as to give up these, in the fight for rusfridom.

Furthermore wish we to throw a brannfakkel to the Progress and Grøvan. Since most of the forskingsrapportar shows that about substansar still only available illegally, it is not to prevent the use and possession of them can be met without the straffelova, as we already do in the program toward journey in ruspåverka condition. What is that Grøvan Sector takes seriously the research and a trend that has been going on for several decades?

the Time is overmoden for a yet larger review of biomedicine and the development of the models are that can replace the current practice. Heroin-assisted treatment is one of these.

As Grøvan understand refers to, so we have about 8000 users on ALLOWS. When we know how difficult it is to get realized rehabiliteringsdelen, we should rather discuss how far one should go further with the treatment of substitute and what kind of price. That Grøvan is easier said than done that the pilot should be made permanent and utvidast hope we are not representative of the KrFs tankegong - that if something works better than it do now, so will a any time, avoid it.

in Conclusion, it may be worth to remind Grøvan on what it says in the KrFs political program:""The christian charity involves a radical attitude for how we are to meet our fellows, who also must have consequences for policy. Charity applies to all people, regardless of who they are and where they live. It includes even those we may perceive as our enemies, and it requires active action".

It is not an active action for medmennesket to reverse the trial project that will give a chance to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

What was the goal in ruspolitikken again? Debate