Title update: Child gets needlestick injury on Dublin Bus

hatrickpatrick

FortySeven wrote: »

I never set out in life to become an addict. I didn't wake up one morning and think 'that's the life for me!"

However bad you think 'junkies' make your life, you will never understand the torture they put themselves through on a daily basis.

The war on drugs has been lost, it's time we began spending the wasted money on treatment, this is a public health issue and we should fund it that way instead of locking up the addicts.

I am a decent, intelligent man, hard working and honest. Addiction can be solved with a bit of will and some funding. I am walking proof of that.

I agree with this sentiment. But would you agree with differentiating between those addicts who are addicted to drug and go about feeding that addiction in a manner which at least tries not to put others in danger, and those who go about it in a careless or even violent manner? There are definitely both types of addict out there and I have nothing against the first kind. If you can shoot up and then just find a litter bin or something like that, I have no issue with it. But leaving a syringe lying around in public is dangerous for obvious reasons, and those who do so when where are multitudes of bins in Dublin are in my view just being wilfully inconsiderate.

I still say that having organised drug zones would be a good idea. The old Baths site in Dun Laoghaire was being used for that over the last few years before the council steeled it up - why can't they just pick a disused building like that and just say "we'll tolerate it here, but crack down heavily on it anywhere else in public"? That way everyone would know that a particular site was potentially full of dangerous artefacts and would be able to keep children etc away from it, while the rest of the streets could be clear.

Satan is Real

whupdedo wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for state sponsored poisoning of the heroin these druggies use , put the poor ****ers out of their misery

Banned

Perhaps not but I certainly believe in a sterilization program for drug addicts and other members of the underclass, let's face it they just spawn feral children to replace them and the cycle is continued. I would offer increased dole money as an incentive for these people to undergo sterilization.

Menas

Satan is Real wrote: »

Perhaps not but I certainly believe in a sterilization program for drug addicts and other members of the underclass, let's face it they just spawn feral children to replace them and the cycle is continued. I would offer increased dole money as an incentive for these people to undergo sterilization.

And if a drug addict sorts themselves out, gets clean etc... can we 'un-sterilize' them?

Mesrine65

Satan is Real wrote: »

Perhaps not but I certainly believe in a sterilization program for drug addicts and other members of the underclass, let's face it they just spawn feral children to replace them and the cycle is continued. I would offer increased dole money as an incentive for these people to undergo sterilization.

Surely you mean Untermensch Herr Hitler?

MarkAnthony

looksee wrote: »

Are the people who are telling us what a hard time drug addicts have and how they are not to blame...for whatever...the same people who are posting in the current thread on AH (and at other times) saying how harmless drugs are and people should not be so boring about them, give them a try, you'll be grand!

It's different drugs though. I don't know a single person that would tell you heroin is harmless. Many other drugs have various medical and other professionals coming out saying that the risks of these drugs bear additional study into whether it's worth keeping them illegal.

I know it's a cliche to trot out smoking vs other drugs but frankly it's as harm goes is someone weekend recretional drug use any worse for them? I don't know the answer to that, but it bears closer study.

What I do know is our approach to heroin addiction in Dublin simply has not worked. A solution that has been trialed in other contries has been to make heroin freely available to addicts, give them a place to shoot up and rest. This removes much of the crime associated with drug additions. Again I'm not sure how many domestic burglaries are assocated with Extacy or Cannabis use but I suspect it's pretty low compared to the 80% of total assocated with heroin use. (2005 stats to be fair).

The point of this ramble is that the war on drugs is simply a political football. the situation will never change while people have a closed mind to the subject. Sorry to single out your post it was just the closest :pac:

EDIT: In relation to serilisation, I think that's a fair (and reversable) compromise and should be included in any heroin distribution system. We've moved away from any impingement on reproductive rights becuase (as rightly pointed out) WWII. We need to move on from that and realise unrestricted reproductive rights has also simply failed.

Satan is Real

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Surely you mean Untermensch Herr Hitler?

My policy would be voluntary.

rubadub

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why would a needle prick cause the child to 'pump blood'?

I would say many children actually do pump blood after accidently harming themselves on other discarded recreational drug paraphanalia though. A drug which the Lancet medical journal considers more harmful to both users and others than heroin.

But sure kids cutting themselves on

broken beer bottles

probably wouldn't make that paper. The place is littered with them.

dutopia

the dark phantom wrote: »

junkies junkies bastard

We're in the prime of our lives.

hatrickpatrick

rubadub wrote: »

But sure kids cutting themselves on

broken beer bottles

probably wouldn't make that paper. The place is littered with them.

The risk of contracting an STI from a broken beer bottle is negligible compared with the risk of contracting one from a used needle.

This is essentially the crux of the matter and why needles bear particular alarm compared with other litter. When heroin spread through Dublin in the 1980s, poor education combined with limited access to clean needles and knowledge of sterilisation to create a concurrent epidemic of STDs among addicts. HIV is the most feared of these, but (I could stand corrected here?) as far as I know, Hepatitis was the particular menace among Dublin's addicts. Some such STDs can be passed from generation to generation and many of those who would have contracted lifelong viruses are still alive today, coupled with the sad fact that even though hygiene and access to needle exchanges etc has improved, needle sharing is probably nowhere near zero yet and therefore there are probably still new addicts contracting new infections.

For this reason, coupled with how deeply a needle can penetrate compared with broken glass or shards of can (that's what they're designed for, after all), it's perfectly legitimate for dirty needles to command more fear and demand more action from society than broken glass. While both are undoubtedly a health hazard and both indicate people who are careless assholes (given, as I said before, the multitude of public bins in Dublin's inner city), of the two, I for one would be far more terrified for my safety after having been pricked with a needle as opposed to a shard of glass.

cowboyBuilder

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The risk of contracting an STI from a broken beer bottle is negligible compared with the risk of contracting one from a used needle.

This is essentially the crux of the matter and why needles bear particular alarm compared with other litter. When heroin spread through Dublin in the 1980s, poor education combined with limited access to clean needles and knowledge of sterilisation to create a concurrent epidemic of STDs among addicts. HIV is the most feared of these, but (I could stand corrected here?) as far as I know, Hepatitis was the particular menace among Dublin's addicts. Some such STDs can be passed from generation to generation and many of those who would have contracted lifelong viruses are still alive today, coupled with the sad fact that even though hygiene and access to needle exchanges etc has improved, needle sharing is probably nowhere near zero yet and therefore there are probably still new addicts contracting new infections.

For this reason, coupled with how deeply a needle can penetrate compared with broken glass or shards of can (that's what they're designed for, after all), it's perfectly legitimate for dirty needles to command more fear and demand more action from society than broken glass. While both are undoubtedly a health hazard and both indicate people who are careless assholes (given, as I said before, the multitude of public bins in Dublin's inner city), of the two, I for one would be far more terrified for my safety after having been pricked with a needle as opposed to a shard of glass.

STIs from a needle ? really ?

And don´t they die pretty quickly outside the human body, so virtually
impossible to pick up HIV/Hep from a needle thats been on the ground for a while.

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The risk of contracting an STI from a broken beer bottle is negligible compared with the risk of contracting one from a used needle.

This is essentially the crux of the matter and why needles bear particular alarm compared with other litter. When heroin spread through Dublin in the 1980s, poor education combined with limited access to clean needles and knowledge of sterilisation to create a concurrent epidemic of STDs among addicts. HIV is the most feared of these, but (I could stand corrected here?) as far as I know, Hepatitis was the particular menace among Dublin's addicts. Some such STDs can be passed from generation to generation and many of those who would have contracted lifelong viruses are still alive today, coupled with the sad fact that even though hygiene and access to needle exchanges etc has improved, needle sharing is probably nowhere near zero yet and therefore there are probably still new addicts contracting new infections.

For this reason, coupled with how deeply a needle can penetrate compared with broken glass or shards of can (that's what they're designed for, after all), it's perfectly legitimate for dirty needles to command more fear and demand more action from society than broken glass. While both are undoubtedly a health hazard and both indicate people who are careless assholes (given, as I said before, the multitude of public bins in Dublin's inner city), of the two, I for one would be far more terrified for my safety after having been pricked with a needle as opposed to a shard of glass.

They are blood borne diseases, not STIs.

There is little chance in contracting anything from a needle stick. The biggest risk is Hep B which is treatable. From the CDC.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)

Health care workers who have received hepatitis B vaccine and have developed immunity to the virus are at virtually no risk for infection. For an unvaccinated person, the risk from a single needlestick or a cut exposure to HBV-infected blood ranges from 6%–30% and depends on the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status of the source individual. Individuals who are both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive and HBeAg positive have more virus in their blood and are more likely to transmit HBV.

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)

Based on limited studies, the estimated risk for infection after a needlestick or cut exposure to HCV-infected blood is approximately 1.8%. The risk following a blood splash is unknown but is believed to be very small; however, HCV infection from such an exposure has been reported.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

The average risk for HIV infection after a needlestick or cut exposure to HlV-infected blood is 0.3% (about 1 in 300). Stated another way, 99.7% of needlestick/cut exposures to HIV-contaminated blood do not lead to infection.
The risk after exposure of the eye, nose, or mouth to HIV-infected blood is estimated to be, on average, 0.1% (1 in 1,000).
The risk after exposure of the skin to HlV-infected blood is estimated to be less than 0.1%. A small amount of blood on intact skin probably poses no risk at all. There have been no documented cases of HIV transmission due to an exposure involving a small amount of blood on intact skin (a few drops of blood on skin for a short period of time). The risk may be higher if the skin is damaged (for example, by a recent cut), if the contact involves a large area of skin, or if the contact is prolonged.