segnosaur

Except BC is the only province where the prevalence of HIV has actually dropped. This study actually is about BC and finds the exact opposite. Jesus christ on a cracker... Considering that insite supporters think they have science on their side, there has been a surprising lack of critical thinking from their side. So lets see what's wrong with your little link, shall we? First of all, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when you say "BC is the only province where HIV dropped" (You didn't provide a reference for that claim, but I'll let it slide for now...) You do know that BC is a very big province, right? Not everyone in BC has access to Insite. Its quite possible that the drop in HIV rates is due to some other factor (for example, here's an article that points to people switching to Crack, which has less HIV risk. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20110325/hiv-druginjection-bc-110325/) Secondly, if your claim is that "Lower HIV rates mean the program is working", does that mean that the needle exchange programs in Toronto/Montreal/etc. DON'T work? Lastly, that article you quoted is worthless. Spends a lot of time talking about how "Insite users share needles less", but makes no effort to compare HIV rates between the Insite and the non-Insite using population.

That's the problem... it hasn't been proven to work. And despite the mountain of "studies" provided by supporters of Insite, I have yet to see one that's actually, you know, relevant.

the "problem"?... which has what relevance and immediacy to the facility, proper? Ummmm... I already explained that. Multiple times. The argument that people are making regarding this facility is that it "saves lives". At this point, we don't have any evidence that it does or does not (at least nothing that would convince anyone who's capable of actual rational thinking.) Once again... the problem with programs like Insite or Needle exchange programs is that they give an opportunity for people who might not have otherwise met to become familiar with each other, to the point where they may engage in risky behavior with each other and thus spread HIV. Studies have shown that it can and does happen. Uhhh... so? Is this a lot? So, approximately of Insite users 4% were admitted into their related detox site. Is that a lot? A little? How many non-Insite users seek out rehab facilities on a yearly basis? Are there other methods that have similar (or better) results of getting people into Detox? Waving all sorts of numbers around without any sort of context may impress some people, but anyone who is able to actually apply a bit of critical thinking will not be convinced. The difference between you and I is that I know I don't have the answers. On the other hand, you think you know, but you really don't.

Not really... Ok, this is a blog run by some sort of student newspaper. (Not exactly a peer reviewed paper or major media outlet.) However, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume its all correct. Lets see what it says about HIV: Researchers found that Insite users are 70 percent less likely to share syringes than injection drug users who do not utilize the facility. Notice however that it does not say they never share needles with others. So Insite users do sometimes share needles, and that can spread HIV. The problem is now they may spread it to people they meet at the Insite site (instead of just their original circle of friends.) A second article in the American Journal of Infectious Diseases examined the syringe sharing of users in the Downtown Eastside and did not find a single instance of used syringe lending of HIV-positive individuals who reported exclusive use of Insite. So? The problem may not be those who use Insite exclusively. The problem is those that use Insite sometimes, and then inject drugs outside of Insite later on. The journal, Addiction, compiled another study of SIFs in Spain and Insite in Vancouver and found that regular users of SIFs have a 69 percent less chance of sharing syringes, further supporting these results. Which of course is not the same as never sharing syringes. Hey, I'm willing to admit that the incidence of needle sharing does go down through both Insite and other needle exchange programs. I never claimed otherwise. The problem is what happens when they do share needles.

You're right, there is no guarantee that anyone will completely utilize SIFs. (Of course, that was the point I made in my first post... the problem with SIF is that it might encourage disease by giving a medium for people to meet who might not otherwise, who may then engage in unsafe practices elsewhere.) And even if they can't guarantee any user uses a SIF each and every time, that doesn't prevent at least some analysis from being done. They could compare a group of people who never use Insite (or needle exchange programs, or whatever) with people who use them at least once a week, and compare the prevalence of HIV/HepC in those 2 groups. Not sure what the problem here is. Its probably fairly easy to identify a group of people in Vancouver with similar demographics who just never use InSite. I can't really think of a motivation people would have for lying. Problem with that article is that it claims to use the "number of HIV deaths prevented", but it doesn't state where it derives that number. (At least not in the abstract... maybe the main article goes into details about where it gets that value from, but if they're using faulty data for figuring the number of HIV deaths prevented, then it will give faulty conclusions.

Keep in mind that studies are typically published in peer reviewed journals. That means that their results are examined by groups of people who were not involved in the initial study and may even be hostile to its conclusions. The process of peer review is not perfect, but it tends to do a fairly good job at keeping science honest. I'm willing to accept the conclusions of a well-done relevant study concluding that Insite "works". I just haven't seen it yet. (The problem so far has been that so many studies have not been fully relevant.)

Yes it does address harm reduction programs. I even admitted it in my earlier post. As is any assumption that your study supercedes the study I referred to earlier. Problem with that study is again, it doesn't really address the issue of program users vs. non-users. It looks at HIV in a drug-using population, but doesn't do anything to say "Group A does better than Group B". It just says "This is what happens to Group A over time." Again though, I want to stress that there are studies out there that show things like needle exchange programs work. But there are also studies that show they don't. I think its just wrong for those favoring things like Insite to claim "Science is on their side" when the science is, at best, fuzzy.

I'm a skeptic. I believe in following the evidence, wherever that may lead. I also recognize that its possible for science to be misused/misapplied. In general, a single study, covering a topic of interest, is more valuable than a dozen studies of no (or only marginal) relevance. Your link certainly provided a lot of references to studies. And yes, may appeared in quite notable journals. I've gone over the ones that I think were most relevant to the situation and here's what I found... - Many articles seem to just provide background (e.g. they talk about HIV in general, but not the effect of Insite or other similar programs) - Some of them are about their use in preventing overdose deaths.... something I never disputed - Some of the studies depended on self-reported statistics - About the only one that seemed to deal with HIV and Insite was #19, and even then it didn't really compare HIV outside the Insite-using population. In short, nothing answered the question: Will there be more or less cases of HIV/HepC due to the presence of Insite. To do so you need to be able to compare insite users with a control group of some type, which I have not found at this point in time.

The only thing 'striking' is the way Palestian terrorist fans misuse the case of WW2-era jewish populations. Yet the Palestinians have elected a party that has, as its rule, the elimination of Israel. The Jews in Warsaw held no such desires for WW2-era Germany. But then the Paelestinans have shown a willingness to use human sheids, something that I doubt the warsaw jews were doing. Despite the assasinations, the population of Gaza has increased. The Jewish population in Poland? Errr... not so much. Ummmm... so? Despite their charter being well publicized, Palestinians still voted for them. Once again, let me stress that: Palestinians in Gaza voted for a party that openly declared that they were going to eliminate Israel. Not "live in peace". Not "End the occupation". But: eliminate another country. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer is deciding who to vote for mayor... Should I vote for Sideshow Bob? "Well, I disagree with his Bart killing policy. On the other hand..." You know, in the "civilized" world, if one party had such a blatant demonstration of racism they wouldn't get a million miles from power. Here's the thing... I certainly don't think Israel is blameless. But as long as people foolishly try to defend each and every action that the Palestinians do (regardless of how barbaric), it certainly makes it difficult to show any sympathy for their cause. I for example, certainly don't want to be associated with people who somehow thing a group that underwent the holocaust is somehow morally equivalent to a group who chooses to fire missles and mortars into Israeli territory.

Let me get this straight... You're deliberately drawing a moral equivalence between the Jews under Nazi control (who generally had no ill-will towards Germany prior to the war and were more or less fighting for survival as the Germans attempted genocide) with the Palestinians in Gaza, who are run by a party that has (as their written and publically available policy) the elimination of Israel, and who's population over the past few decades as greatly increased? Wow, just... wow.

Ummm.... not really. That's not the way science works. The more recent study was not specifically addressing the issue of needle exchange programs. It was examining the overall HIV trends among the drug using community (some who used needle exchange programs, some who were not.) It probably was accurate when discussing HIV trends, but it doesn't mean that those trends were due to needle exchange programs. And even when it did address the issue of safe injection sites, the results were not clear.

your analogy sucks. they live and fight in gaza. Ummm... the total area of the Gaza strip is 360 km square. I'm pretty sure that a "terrorist father" who actually wanted to protect his kids could probably find somewhere in that 360 km to keep his kid safe. Heck, even if Israel decided to use a MOAB (the largest conventional explosive in the U.S. arsenal) the blast radius is 137m. That would mean that there's roughly 359.94 square kilometers in Gaza where he could have his kid live. Why do "terrorist fathers" have to keep their children by their side? (Well, ok, that was a rhetorical question... we know why terrorists keep their children around... so that they can try operating with impunity, and if Israel does try to fight back, they can get people like you claiming "Oh, Israel wants to kill Palestinian children". You do know that the Geneva convention specifically prohibits the use of human shields.)

How can he change my mind when I've already pointed out that I haven't made my mind up in the first place? Bad arguments (such as the ones I pointed out) should be challenged, regardless of what side of the debate you happen to fall on.

hey look! More Science! The same doctor, the same city... long term trending analysis: Trends in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Incidence and Risk Behavior Among Injection Drug Users in Montreal, Canada: A 16-Year Longitudinal Study In conclusion, HIV incidence has declined in this cohort, with an acceleration of the reduction in HIV transmission after 2000. First of all, I already admitted in my earlier post that the study I quoted was not the only one, and that some studies might actually show different results. The only thing we can say is that at this point the data is not clear, and anyone claiming "Needle Exchange prevents HIV" is making a claim that is not supported in reality. Secondly, the study you quoted appeared to be mostly discussing HIV transmission in general (rather than dealing specifically with needle exchange programs). And even when it does address safe injection sites, it admits that in some cases any links are not statistically significant.

Soooo.... what you're saying is that it would be an effective tactic for the Palestinians to use "human shields", and Israel is wrong for reacting when such human shields are used? Just out of curiosity... What exactly do you think that says about the quality of Palestinian parenting when someone who engages in militant activity (making themselves a target) decides to keep their children around? After all, in both cases it appears the fathers were involved in terrorist activities. Shouldn't a responsible parent, if they really cared about their children, actually make attempts to distance themselves from their children should something happen? It would be like the U.S. deciding to set up a daycare in Kabul for the children of soldiers shipped to Afghanistan....

Sorry about joining this thread rather late. The thread seems to have rapidly grown; I skimmed through it, but didn't see anyone address a few issues that were brought up way on the first page... Hey look! Science! http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.abstract Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with Needle Exchange programs attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users. So, what that says that there is some evidence that, even though Needle Exchange programs are supposed to reduce HIV, they can have the opposite effect. (Basically what happens is that, while clean needles are provided, drug users don't always use the clean needles. However, the presence of the needle exchange is that it causes drug users who might never have met otherwise to interact, thus enabling the spread of HIV and HepC.) I do want to point out that this was a more general study... (i.e. it was not specifically examining the Insite situation.) And not all studies or exchange programs have the same result.) I also want to point out that yes, Insite might save some lives by preventing overdoses, etc. But its quite possible that the presence of Insite and other systems could increase the spread of HIV and HepC, and thus counteract the lives saved through overdose prevention. Before we applaud Insite for convincing drug users to "clean up/go straight", I'd want to see more data. After all, total admissions are not necessarily relevant, since some of those individuals might have still entered rehab facilities anyways, even if not referred by Insite. Before you applaud Insite for its its effect on crime and "public injections", keep in mind that the Insite site was not created in a vacuum. In fact, there was also a corresponding increase in police presence in the area (including, if I remember correctly, additional patrols.) If you have more police in the area, you're probably going to deter crime (with or without a 'safe injection site'.) From: http://www.bcmj.org/premise/supervised-injection-sites%E2%80%94-view-law-enforcement What is lost in many of the discussions about supervised injection sites are the uniformed officers who patrol the areas around the sites....People have become used to thinking of the DTES as a centre for public urination and defecation, prostitution, open sex, panhand­ling, drug trafficking, assaults, and violent crime. It is not fair. This is a great neighborhood, a unique community made up of many fine, law-abiding citizens. It was never more obvious when 40 additional officers patrolled the DTES in 2003. Now, that said, I have not yet made up my mind about the Insite site. I do believe that drug laws should be reformed/liberalized (both for pragmatic as well as philisophical reasons.) However, I just recognize that some of the reasons given for Insite (as well as things like Needle Exchange Programs) might be flawed.

Nothing will have a universal benefit, if the one believes the only benefits that matter are those that affect the individual directly. There are, however, indirect benefits. I have no children, but I gladly pay taxes that go into the education system because better educated individuals will make for a better society from which I benefit. Ummm... go back to post 300. That's where I already dealt with the issue. (I pretty much made the same argument in order to distinguish why publicly funded education is acceptable, but CBC funding is not. Note also that I said "universal" benefit, as opposed to "direct" benefit. Also note that I put the word "universal" in quotes for a reason. (Basically, because I do recognize that there may be individuals who may never benefit directly, but the benefits are still wide-spread in society.) So, is your argument "Its not useful to everyone now but it might be in the future"? If it doesn't have "universal" (or at least widespread) benefit now, how long should we wait until it does have a benefit before we say enough? One year? One decade? Well, if it really has "lost its sense of purpose", but the country is still surviving (and in some ways doing better than most other countries in the world) then maybe its not really needed at all.

I'd go a little further. Not only would I want to see proof that the majority want Palestine to be recognized, I'd want to see how many want the recognition coming under the current circumstances (i.e. Gaza controlled by a group not willing to recognize Israel, territorial issues in the west bank, etc.) I would have no problem with a Palestinian state. I think ultimately it would be a good thing. But I think such recognition should come only under certain circumstances (e.g. half the territory not run by people willing to launch rocket attacks, etc.) Not that I think Israel is perfect (they should really rethink their building programs) but the ball really is in the Palestinian court.

Simpleton reasoning. Why do you want to steal money from me in order to teach your kids ? There are a few reasons: - While your tax dollars may go to educate his kids, its also true that someone else's tax dollars went into your education. So there is no "direct" payment (person X pays for education Y), but its a system where everyone pays and everyone benefits. - Society as a whole benefits from an educated work force. Your money money may go to teach other kids, but at least some of those kids will become the doctors, engineers, businessmen, and scientists that help keep our country successful. On the other hand, you listing to CBC radio or watching CBC television does not really provide any benefit for anyone else. - Its generally assumed that a basic education is a "right" of every person. As such, the government does have an obligation to support it. There is no such "right" to entertainment or other material as provided by CBC. (Note that I am using the word "right" in a very broad sense here.) Not sure if the previous poster did, but many of us HAVE thought it through.

We have an anarchist amongst us. Not necessarily. He could be a libertarian. An anarchist wants the elimination of all government. A libertarian still believes in the existence of a central government, but that its functions should consist only of those necessary to maintain peace and order (e.g. defense, policing/court system.) A libertarian will reject the left wing economic policies (higher taxes, more social spending) of the NDP, but will also reject the right wing social policies (e.g. anti-drug policies) of the conservatives.

"Steal" money from you? Conversely, why are you able to steal money from me in order to support the defence of your area of the country, where I don't live? Because, as with many other government services (defense, roads, heath care, etc.) you also benefit from money that he (and everyone else) have paid in. Everyone pays, everyone benefits (or should I say almost everyone, just in case someone tries to mention some hobo living in the back woods or something.) Yeah, your tax money is going to pay for defending his area of the country (and possibly for roads, etc.), but his taxes, as well as other people's, is going to pay for your defense/roads/etc. On the other hand, the CBC has no such "universal" benefit. If you are not using the CBC for its television or radio services, you are using private companies for the same thing, which are (for the most part) NOT subsidized (or may have minimal government support, but nowhere near that of the CBC.) Yet the "what's in it for me" attitude seems to be the basis that many CBC supporters have. "What's in it" for them is content they like, even if the rest of us don't. So, does your complaint of the "whats in it for me" extend to all areas of government spending? Should we stop complaining about things like the Harper government possibly misspending on the G8/G20 summit, or Chretien misspending on the HRDC and ad-scam scandal? What about when the government supported the creation of a "dumb blond" joke book? After all, someone eventually benefited from those (even if most tax payers didn't.) So complaining about them is still arguing "what's in it for me".

First of all, keep in mind that for some of us whether CBC is 'biased' is not a major issue in this discussion... even if it were somehow totally unbiased, I would still be in favor of eliminating it for the same reason I explained before... it does not provide a function that other outlets are not able to provide. (I did in fact point out several incidences of bias. However, I also acknowledged that individual cases do not necessarily constitute an overall bias.) Secondly, I can identify several problems with Chomsky's theories. - Much of his work is likewise based on citing particular instances. (For example, in the Manufacturing Consent movie he discusses the New York Times discussion of East Timor.) However, that's cherry picking.... Him picking on the NYT for this one incidence is no different than someone pointing to a biased CBC story and saying "See?" In both cases an individual case does not indicate a systemic problem. - Much of his theory is summed up by "profit motives=bias". However, it would be a mistake to assume the same bias will cause the entire media world to engage in the same bias. Companies will do what's best for themselves and their profits; in some cases it will mean a particular outlet will project a "right wing" bias. However, a media organization may also project a "left wing" bias if it feels it can profit from it. I have no doubt that individual media outlets can and do have biases. But as a whole the media is neutral. In addition, there can be a financial advantage to "getting things right"... a news source that is biased to the point that it is "wrong" risks seeing their revenues drop as people go to more accurate sources. - He appears to be ignoring other factors that might serve as a counterbalance (even if some media owners wanted a 'shift to the right'.) Newspapers/TV stations/etc. have to be staffed, and I doubt it can be claimed that every available graduate from journalism schools is willing to toe the "right wing" line. Lastly, not sure why its actually relevant. Are you claiming we need the CBC because its the only "unbiased source up against biased media"? In that case, you seem to be applying a "double standard"... you are suggesting that private media outlets are the only ones that are "in it for themselves", while ignoring any sort of self-beneficial actions a government-run organization may have. (After all, it would be to their benefit to push stories that justify their existence. Why would they be immune from 'greed'?)

Here's a poll (conducted by Abacus Data) that some people might consider relevant: - Roughly 80% of Canadians didn't know how much money the CBC was receiving. More than half (60%) thought it was receiving $150 million or less. (So, anyone pointing to polls showing how many Canadians want the CBC kept should keep that in mind.) - 60% of all Canadians thing the CBC receives "too much" money from the government. - As expected there is more support for cutting CBC funding among conservatives than Liberals. Surprisingly though, 53% of all NDP supporters also want funding cut (a higher percentage than the Liberals.) There was one thing I couldn't figure out with the poll... whether the question of whether the CBC receives "too much" was asked when the people didn't know how much it received, or did the pollster point out the correct funding amount before asking this question. Note that this poll was an "on line" poll, but respondents were selected at random from a pool of available users, and the results were weighted to match the census data for each region. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/09/07/cbcfunding.pdf http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/09/07/18649016.html

Yes the "Beach combers" and "Ann of Green Gables" are fictional but are 100% Canadian.Do you think CBS would run a TV show about life in general centred around PEI? Oh another good one is "Littlest mosque on the prarie". Umm... first of all, your earlier statement was "I forgot how much American programing helps to educate its viewers about Canada". You were the one that brought up the issue of "education", not "what percentage of the show is produced here". And question... just how much "education" do you think people are absorbing when the CBC broadcasts shows that virtually nobody is watching? Yeah, you have pointed to shows like Ann of Green Gables (which had a certain amount of popularity), but such "hits" are few and far between. Do not tell me whom I may decide has merit or not! You have the right to believe whomever you want. Heck, if you want to claim your opinions come from an all-knowing invisible pink unicorn living in your sock drawer you have that right. However, I have a right to point out that attempting to "name drop" by brining up people like MCCulloch et. al is a false argument from authority and you can and should be called out on it. The fact that they've been engaged in television production does not mean that they necessarily have a greater understanding of economics, ethics, statistics or demographics, all of which are more relevant to whether the CBC should be funded than "OMG! They appeared on the TV!" Probably not, but why is that relevant? Believe it or not, some people may support a political party even if they do not agree 100% with every policy decision they make.

Actually there were many people/groups calling for the CBC to be privatized/funding cut, long before the Sun news network came long. For example: (from 2005) The National Citizens Coalition says it’s time to privatize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4704