Big Blue Machine Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watching&waiting Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 For me it is the question of whether the safe sites and new syringe programs, need to show that the cost of this, save the system money, either by ensuring better health, or being able to reach out and get those who want off drugs, a place to go and ask for it. It also would probably fit in with the call home program for runaway child, but it also would be giving some legitimacy to do drugs as well. So it is a double edged sword. I just do not think that a drug addicted prostitute would bother going to a site to hit up, when if you look around the red light areas of cities you can see then hitting up in laneways and alleys, and then walk out to the sidewalk to find their next trick. I just do not see where there would be any advantage in having these sites, and can actually think of more reasons why not to have them, then for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 I just do not see where there would be any advantage in having these sites, and can actually think of more reasons why not to have them, then for them. What alternatives do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 First they need to change the name to something more honest. There will never be anything safe about injecting illegal drugs bought on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 The federal government has a responsibility to extend Vancouver's pilot supervised injection program, which has been shown to save lives, reduce the spread of diseases and help addicts overcome substance dependency, said Green Party of Canada Health Advocate Chris Milburn True but, InSite: 1. does nothing to control the increasing use of illegal drugs in Vancouver, up 16% in last reported year. 2. does nothing to control the increasing crime committed to obtain the drugs. 3. does nothing to control the trafficking of illegal drugs in Vancouver. 4. The spread of drug related diseases is is still on the rise in Vancouver. InSite is not working in the overall picture. It is time to treat substance dependency as what it is; a disease, an 'infectious communicable' disease that threatens many of our most vunerable citizens and children and effects the safety and security of all other citizens. If substance dependency was equated to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome the patient would be quarantined first and then treated. If substance dependency was equated to mental deficiency with the probability of doing self harm, the patient would be force treated. It is time to treat addicts the same; mandatory rehabilitation. Yes it costs money for all these rehab centers needed, but far less then the 80+ billion per year the use of illegal drugs is costing Canadians at present, and rising each year. Want to save lives - mandatory rehab Want to reduce the spread of disease - mandatory rehab Want to help addicts overcome substance dependency - mandatory rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 They need to make the choice for rehab, it's the only way rehab is going to work long-term... they don't want to choose it, then they go to prision. No need to give them the means to kill themselves, just rehab or drug-free (and truly drug-free, something that needs to be fixed) prision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Too many of these responses indicate a profound misunderstanding of the nature of addiction. For example 'but it also would be giving some legitimacy to do drugs as well. So it is a double edged sword. ' Addicts are addicted to drugs, they will take them with or without the safe site. People started taking drugs before the site exiosted and will continue with or without it. The main purpose of the site is to try and keep addicts alive long enough that they can seek help in controlling their addiction. I support trying to help keep them alive, and also helping to slow the spread of disease. Others prefer to dismiss any current or potential worth our fellow humans have or may have. Not me. Addicts are people in trouble, not some piece of crap stuck to the bottom of my shoe. They can't help themselves out of their mess when they are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Too many of these responses indicate a profound misunderstanding of the nature of addiction.For example 'but it also would be giving some legitimacy to do drugs as well. So it is a double edged sword. ' Addicts are addicted to drugs, they will take them with or without the safe site. People started taking drugs before the site exiosted and will continue with or without it. Ottawa did something similar recently in handling out crack pipe kits to keep crackheads from sharing their crack pipes and thus spreading disease. It worked, sort of, in limiting the spread of disease. It also noticeably increased the number of people on crack. I don't consider that to be an advantage. I would rather have the existing ones get sick - they are bound to die soon anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 I would rather have the existing ones get sick - they are bound to die soon anyway.Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways:1) One less drug addicted person supporting a criminal sub-culture. 2) A high death rate will help convince people with less serious problems to clean up sooner and cause less damage to themselves and others. Many people do not think about the importance of 2). People don't become addicts overnight - it happens gradually over time. Often there are many opportunities to help a person before they become a street level addict. Anything we do to make street level drug use less harmful actually makes it harder to reach someone who has not reached that level yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways: Why not hasten that by executing addicts on sight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Apparently according to one poster here, some sites have been providing the drugs too. What I'd like to know is if the providers get it on whole-sale price...and from where? Do they raid the "evidence room" and confiscated drugs of every precinct? Are they top notch drugs quality-wise? You know, we want only the best for our kids! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Apparently according to one poster here, some sites have been providing the drugs too. What I'd like to know is if the providers get it on whole-sale price...and from where? That is certainly a bogus story in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways: Why not hasten that by executing addicts on sight? Too messy. Besides, if you're a druggy...wouldn't you rather die "high?" More humane that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Too messy.Besides, if you're a druggy...wouldn't you rather die "high?" More humane that way. I was thinking alcoholics and gamblers as well. And not messy at all if you have big ovens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 And not messy at all if you have big ovens. Big ovens? What? We need to shell out more dough building those? Then we'll have problems with environmentalists to boot...once they start complaining about all them smokes! Much cheaper by the drugs! AND they die blissfully happy! Unless, if they were having a bad trip....what a bummer to pick a fine time to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Why not hasten that by executing addicts on sight?Addicts who refuse help are committing suicide on the installment plan and cause a lot of harm to a lot of people in the process - sometimes evening killing them while they commit crimes to support their habit. Letting addicts die is the ultimate harm reduction from the perspective of society. If you want to hasten the process you could lock up a druggy in a room with enough drugs to OD - tell them that there is a place in a treatment/detox center if they are willing to go that route. If they don't want to clean up then they can put themselves out of their misery. It all comes down giving addicts the right incentives to make the right choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Big ovens?What? We need to shell out more dough building those? Then we'll have problems with environmentalists to boot...once they start complaining about all them smokes! Much cheaper by the drugs! AND they die blissfully happy! Unless, if they were having a bad trip....what a bummer to pick a fine time to die. If you cut them up into smaller pieces, they will fit in any home oven. Drugs don't do anything for gamblers who are also addicts. Or smokers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Addicts who refuse help are committing suicide on the installment plan and cause a lot of harm to a lot of people in the process - sometimes evening killing them while they commit crimes to support their habit. Letting addicts die is the ultimate harm reduction from the perspective of society. If you want to hasten the process you could lock up a druggy in a room with enough drugs to OD - tell them that there is a place in a treatment/detox center if they are willing to go that route. If they don't want to clean up then they can put themselves out of their misery. It all comes down giving addicts the right incentives to make the right choices. How fast do you think an addict of any kind takes to die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 How fast do you think an addict of any kind takes to die?An OD from heroin or crack can kill you fairly fast. Almost impossible to do with pot. You could provide a gun with one bullet in those cases. Addicts are actually afraid to die - if they were really suicidal they would have likely already done it. So it is quite likely that forcing an addict into a sitution where they have to clean up or die will provide the incentive to get them to clean up (which is the ultimate objective here - right?). It is true that a certain percentage would be pushed over the edge but we are taking 'harm reduction' here and no matter what choice the addict makes society ends up better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Conservatives won't shut down centre on September 11. Clever to announce late Friday on a long weekend, huh? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/02092006/3/cana...-stay-open.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 An OD from heroin or crack can kill you fairly fast. Almost impossible to do with pot. You could provide a gun with one bullet in those cases. Addicts are actually afraid to die - if they were really suicidal they would have likely already done it. So it is quite likely that forcing an addict into a sitution where they have to clean up or die will provide the incentive to get them to clean up (which is the ultimate objective here - right?). It is true that a certain percentage would be pushed over the edge but we are taking 'harm reduction' here and no matter what choice the addict makes society ends up better off. Looks like the Tories won't be closing the center anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 If you cut them up into smaller pieces, they will fit in any home oven. But then we're back into the messy part..... Besides, who provide the home ovens? Golly, I don't wanna use the oven we use for regular home-cooking! So that's another expense to shell out....giving every home druggie-oven-kits? Does it come with an electric chopper/food processor...or a very sharp cleaver? Gee, one thing for certain, they do seem to be typical Liberal-funded programs...expenses soaring out of control! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 How fast do you think an addict of any kind takes to die? depends. Smokers of regular cigarettes....depends on their genes....some will catch cancer just like one catches a regular cold. While others manage to reach their eighties or more! But with drug addicts such as crack or heroin, I'd say it can take pretty fast to kick the bucket. The beauty of it is that, apparently, they have full control of the situation...so therefore it can take as long they'd want to last. That is if we believe the rubbish some would like you to believe that the brains don't get fried by these drugs. Anyway, from what I'd seen in the movies....3 whole big tablespoons should do it for heroin, and crack as big as a whopper should be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Safe Injection Site <-- an oxymoron if there ever was one. Please explain why if we were to fund such a place that it should a safe injection site and not a rehab facility? Why not fix the problem instead of exasterbating it? By publicly funding drug use (aiding drug addicts amounts to the same thing), does that amount to government endorsement of drug use? Is that a good message to send? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Safe Injection Site <-- an oxymoron if there ever was one.Please explain why if we were to fund such a place that it should a safe injection site and not a rehab facility? The Conservatives had the option of shutting it down a week from now. You'll have to ask them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.