Canada and government subsidized heroin?


I have no issue with those who fall, ‘not just seven times, but seventy times seven’ what I have issue with are the suppliers, the enablers who rather then ‘cure’ or ‘heal’ want to ‘accept’ or ‘manage’

The exact same argument is done with contraceptives, they are supplied because they say kids are going to have sex anyway, so we may as well try to make it as safe as possible for them by supplying them with contraceptives. The kids then get a false sense of security and it reinforces the behavior.

And the alternative is to just supply them with drugs? better that you supply it than a shady drug dealer they could overdose from?

I agree people can’t force drug addicts into rehab, but if they don’t want to go to rehab, they should certainly not be enabled in their addiction by stopping the war on drugs which allows the suppliers to go around unabated.

Thank you for reading.


Ideally it should be a part of the rehabilitation process, to not only help them overcome the addiction, but to also help them into a different environment so they don’t fall back into the same old habits.

Not only that, but if the war on drugs were continuing, hopefully their local dealer will also have been busted and that dealers supplier etc.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.


The worry here is that getting them into a different environment means getting them to where they have jobs and can afford their own housing and all that.

I have my doubts that we can bust enough dealers to keep people from buying drugs, especially in urban centers.

And I imagine just providing them with housing before they’re staying clean would meet many of the same objections.


I think this is something the church and many in here have to come to terms with quickly. It is one thing to advocate for something one thinks is good, it is another to put one’s hand in their own pocket and pay for it and still another to believe one has the unquestioned right to put one’s hand in someone else’s pocket and make the case that people are not moral unless they surrender their wealth to others self perceived goodness.


It seems to me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of MAT.

You won’t understand unless you either research it in depth or did it yourself.

The way you refer to it as “giving them drugs” is just so wrong I don’t know where to begin.


Here in NH, as a former homeless heroin addict myself, I can confirm from first hand experience the population of homeless people who are also addicted and/or have other mental illnesses is about 60-80%

And most homeless people with addictions are homeless because of addiction - especially in the 18-35 age range.


I’m a recovering addict, since 1988.
A free supply of drugs would’ve done absolutely nothing to help me recover. It would have had the opposite effect.
The positive effect of government subsidized heroin may be that it eliminates the illegal drug trade. Once the illegal supply of drugs is curtailed, then the problem can be addressed more productively.


This is a nonsense argument against the Vancouver program. It is essentially this:

  1. Some tax money goes toward evil.
  2. This program uses taxes.
  3. Therefore this program is evil.

I’m still waiting for a link to authoritative details on the program everyone seems to know so much about.


It was heroin and cocaine. She was only 17. I am offended that you continue to call my dead daughter a druggy. Perhaps the scourge of drug addiction has not hit anyone close to you. You may think it is entirely due to the fine character of you and your family who would never do such an awful thing by choice. But you would be deluded in thinking this. You are very very lucky. So lucky you don’t even acknowledge that your good luck is an undeserved blessing from God. And so you think it appropriate to speak disparagingly about those who are not so lucky.


I understand MAT in that it helps addicts in regards to withdrawal symptoms, I’m fine with that, this is not what is being argued though.

The same thing was floated here in Australia, I knew this is where it was headed straight away.

Safe injection sites and drug testing facilities at parties and similar ideas are not MAT. They are what those teaching contraceptives in sex education argue, same with abortion and the old fallacy of dangerous back alley abortions, because they are going to do it anyway so we might as well make it legal and help them do it ‘safely’ whatever that means.

Hence planned parenthood comes on the scene, abortion clinics prop up, and abortion is increased ten fold.

This kind of thinking has been tried and It has utterly failed. But if they support abortion with this foolish thinking, they will support this other in regards to drugs which is destined to fail and cause much harm.

Thank you for reading.


There will always be the enthusiast and custom market if the government were to legalize it. In capitalism, someone will supply and make profits from it. Not only that, but with it legal, it says to the people and wider society that it’s not a harmful practice.

Then the ‘illegal’ supply will simply be made ‘legal’. It’s like slapping lipstick on a pig IMO and saying ‘problem solved’

That’s awesome, same with Spyridon that you have both overcome previous addictions.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.


I understand and think things like ‘druggy’ are insensitive and wrong terms, but I am 100% sure Seeksadvice was not referring to someone like your daughter whom I will say a prayer for.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.


What “her” do you think he was referring to?


I don’t think his views necessarily reflect the stance a Catholic theocracy would take at any rate…


[quote=“josh987654321, post:115, topic:458578”]
There will always be the enthusiast and custom market if the government were to legalize it. In capitalism, someone will supply and make profits from it. Not only that, but with it legal, it says to the people and wider society that it’s not a harmful practice.

We are not talking about legalization, but subsidies in the form of free government heroin. It’s impossible for private industry to compete against the government. The market for costly illegal drugs will disappear. The dealers will not have a market and will have to find some other line of work.

Once the illegal supply is negligible, other hopefully more effective solutions are possible.



What a great post. It is clear to see you are approaching from a very Christ like angle, God bless


It has to be legal in order to be subsidized.

Not true. They can and they will, the government will put all kinds of restrictions on it that private industry will not and even if they didn’t, they got rid of the illegal supply, well, nothing has changed, on the contrary, now you can get an unlimited supply of so called ‘safe’ drugs.

Why not do it if now it’s apparently ‘safe’ and why even try to quit?

Yea, government work I guess.

Lets use this example with abortion.

  1. back alley abortions are dangerous
  2. legalize and subsidize ‘safe’ abortions, don’t try to stop it but instead try to regulate it.
  3. Planned Parenthood runs a business for profit, regulation means loss of profits, work to remove regulations and stigmas around it.
  4. Abortion is no longer bad, it’s a woman’s ‘right’ to kill, it’s available all the way until birth and even partial birth.
  5. Clinics prop up all over the US and woman are campaigned like other companies do to sell their services.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”


Here’s the issue:

Using a chemical to treat a medical issue, even if that medical issue is one the person caused themselves, is not inherently immoral. This is the case even if that chemical may cause other issues.

Procuring an abortion is inherently immoral.


Part of that environment is friends and filling the gap after rehab is tough. Developing friendships as adults is difficult and even more so if there are issues with mental illness and chemical dependancy; co-morbidity is present more often than not. Often they have poor boundaries and that can drive healthy people away.


Not legal in the sense you used it - i.e. legal generally. The special use through a very limited government program does not have to apply to anyone outside that program.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit