BC Judge Rules

[eyeball]

I prefer them to be arrested and locked up for very, very long periods of time.

Okay but only if you treat drunks equally, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

[eyeball]

How about treating the addicted and doing more than just go through the motions when it comes to the people who deal in this death.

Okay, but only if you treat liquor store clerks the same way, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

[Wilber]

Okay, but only if you treat liquor store clerks the same way, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

You believe that would solve the probem?

[eyeball]

You believe that would solve the probem?

I hope the suggestion might focus our attention on the real problem - the absence of a clear consistent set of principles from which to begin approaching how society deals with the use of mind altering substances.

Our system to date is as backwards as colour coded bus seating.

[Wilber]

I hope the suggestion might focus our attention on the real problem - the absence of a clear consistent set of principles from which to begin approaching how society deals with the use of mind altering substances.

Our system to date is as backwards as colour coded bus seating.

I agree that we have been neither clear or consistent so what would you suggest?

[Riverwind]

And no - it's not sweeping it under the rug when you don't have a vacuum or a dust-bin. Intravenous (sp?) drug-users exist, this is a fact. Until you find a way to eliminate them all together, it makes no sense whatsoever to have seem shooting up and/or dying on the street.

Actually what would make sense is a policy that takes into account the nature of addiction and why enabling an addict is the cruelist thing you can do to them. A few points to consider:

1) Addiction is a medical problem that requires that the sufferer accept the treatment offered.

2) Due to the nature of the disease most addicts insist that they don't have a problem that needs treatment.

3) When others (family, friends or government) shield an addict from the consequences of their addiction they encourage the denial to continue.

This means the system needs to have some 'tough love' injected into that ensures adequate treatment and support are available to addicts that wish to accept the treatment but promises misery to those that refuse.

If/when a drug addict is caught committing crimes to fund the addiction then addict needs to be given a choice of serious jail time or treatment. Many addicts will choose jail but I don't think we should care about those people provided they were given the option of attending a residential treatment center + adequate support/followup after they are released. An addict that chooses jail over treatment is like a smoker who keeps smoking after they have been diagnosesed with cancer (i.e. not someone worthy of sympathy even if they do have a serious medical condition).

Unfortunately, this approach would require that the government spend much more money on treatment facilities than it currently does. Personally, I think it would cost less than building more jails and would be more useful than running safe injection sites.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[BubberMiley]

Okay but only if you treat drunks equally, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

We have to send the jerks there too.

Edited May 31, 2008 by BubberMiley

[stevoh]

1) Addiction is a medical problem that requires that the sufferer accept the treatment offered.

2) Due to the nature of the disease most addicts insist that they don't have a problem that needs treatment.

3) When others (family, friends or government) shield an addict from the consequences of their addiction they encourage the denial to continue.

I don't think a safe injection site shields them from the consequences of anything, except diseases from dirty needles, and death from overdose, and I find it hard to believe you would advocate that as a consequence. Perhaps it shields them from arrest while actually on the site, but they have to face arrest when purchasing and carrying at any other time.

And I also don't think addicts, when in full blown addiction, really care about any consequences. They are just focussed on their next fix and how to get it. Vancouver paramedics will literally save someones life from an overdose with Narcan, and then find the same person dead the next week from an overdose of the same drug. This is why things like "stiffer jail time" and "harsher sentences" is simply not effective.

The safe injection sites serve a number of purposes:

1. Prevent the transfer of disease through shared needles.

2. Have staff immediatly available in the event of overdose.

3. Allow drug addicts a non-public area to shoot up.

4. Provide a safe disposal site for used needles.

5. Provide an environment where addicts who are so motivate to take the first steps towards controlling their addiction.

What is a safe injection site shielding the user from?

[eyeball]

I agree that we have been neither clear or consistent so what would you suggest?

Fundamentally I think Canada needs to determine whether human beings have the right to recreationally alter their minds using a substance. Yes or no?

Our Constitution appears to be completely mute on the subject. There are laws against public drunkeness but presumably you can be drunk in private. It appears to me that people who do alcohol have some sort of 'right' or liberty interest (an interesting bit of terminology don't you think?) to alter their minds. These people presumably aren't required to ride at the back of the bus, so to speak.

What would people think of a parent who lectures their kids on the evils of drugs while waving a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other? Put another way, if the state truly doesn't want people to recreationally alter their minds then why is it enabling the sale of alcohol and tobacco? Is there nothing wrong with either of these two pictures?

[Wilber]

Fundamentally I think Canada needs to determine whether human beings have the right to recreationally alter their minds using a substance. Yes or no?

Our Constitution appears to be completely mute on the subject. There are laws against public drunkeness but presumably you can be drunk in private. It appears to me that people who do alcohol have some sort of 'right' or liberty interest (an interesting bit of terminology don't you think?) to alter their minds. These people presumably aren't required to ride at the back of the bus, so to speak.

What would people think of a parent who lectures their kids on the evils of drugs while waving a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other? Put another way, if the state truly doesn't want people to recreationally alter their minds then why is it enabling the sale of alcohol and tobacco? Is there nothing wrong with either of these two pictures?

You still aren't offering solutions to substance addiction, the crime it generates and the lives it destroys. All you can do is point to alcohol and tobacco and say why can't people f*** themselves up with other drugs as well.

[Drea]

You still aren't offering solutions to substance addiction, the crime it generates and the lives it destroys. All you can do is point to alcohol and tobacco and say why can't people f*** themselves up with other drugs as well.

If a person wants to alter their mind with a substance why can they not legally do so?

Unless you are advocating for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco then you do not have a leg to stand on.

Many people mess their minds and bodies up with alcohol and tobacco; many choose not to; many choose "other" mind altering substances.

The key is in education (isn't education really the answer for everything? ). Currently, we teach our youth that caffiene, nicotine, cocaine, heroin, alcohol and marijuana are all "drugs". Yet this young person sees people drink, sees them smoke cigarettes and determines for himself that if those one's are ok and safe for mom and dad, then the others are also safe and ok.

Many people have quit smoking, not because it became unavailable, but because the public was (is) inundated with educational messages about the dangers of smoking and limits were placed on public smoking.

There is absolutely no logical reason to continue criminalizing drugs, in fact, (yes, we all know this already) legalizing drugs would remove the criminal element.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Drea

[Wilber]

There is absolutely no logical reason to continue criminalizing drugs, in fact, (yes, we all know this already) legalizing drugs would remove the criminal element.

We know nothing of the sort, people just keep saying it like it was some sort of truth. The fact is there will always be some sort of control over drugs even if they are legal, they are just too destructive not to be, which means there will always be criminals trying to get around those controls because it will be profitable to do so. Tobacco is legal yet we have major cigarette smuggling operations making a fortune.

You are the same as eyeball, no solutions other than pointing at booze and alcohol. We have thousands dieing from the effects of those drugs, why not legalize everything else so we can have thousands more dieing of other drugs. Sure education is important but what does that have to do with legalization. You would think the fact something is illegal would give you a hint that perhaps it isn't good for you.

[Riverwind]

This is why things like "stiffer jail time" and "harsher sentences" is simply not effective.

It is not about punishment it is about protecting society from the crimes commited by addicts that use safe injection sites. Society has a right to simply give up on certain individuals once they have demonstrated that they are not willing to change.

1. Prevent the transfer of disease through shared needles.

I agree on this one.

2. Have staff immediatly available in the event of overdose.

IOW - you want to shield the addict from the consequences of their addiction by making them believe that someone is going take care of them if they screw up. Fear of death by overdose is one of the reasons that some addicts clean up. Take that away you will prolong the addiction.

3. Allow drug addicts a non-public area to shoot up.

You also normalize the behavoir by giving it a veneer of social respectability. This also enables the addition.

4. Provide a safe disposal site for used needles.

A drop in the bucket.

5. Provide an environment where addicts who are so motivate to take the first steps towards controlling their addiction.

Only helpful if the treatment facilities are available. Getting people into treatment should be the first priority of places like insight - not an after thought. One of the biggest problems we have is almost all treatment facilities require that an addict be clean before they go in. We should be taking the medical staff that work at insight and employing them at treatment facilities that detox addicts that show a willingness to clean up. Edited June 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[Drea]

We know nothing of the sort, people just keep saying it like it was some sort of truth. The fact is there will always be some sort of control over drugs even if they are legal, they are just too destructive not to be, which means there will always be criminals trying to get around those controls because it will be profitable to do so. Tobacco is legal yet we have major cigarette smuggling operations making a fortune.

Really? When was the last time you heard of a back alley deal for vodka?

Where is the tobacco smuggled from? Who is doing the smuggling and why?

You are the same as eyeball, no solutions other than pointing at booze and alcohol. We have thousands dieing from the effects of those drugs, why not legalize everything else so we can have thousands more dieing of other drugs. Sure education is important but what does that have to do with legalization. You would think the fact something is illegal would give you a hint that perhaps it isn't good for you.

The solution is to legalize and regulate all mind altering substances. AND educate the public just like has been done with smoking. What part of this do you have difficulty understanding?

Cigarettes are harmful, legal and readily available -- yet many people are no longer smoking. Please explain how this could be possible? Is it the EDUCATION perhaps?

Think man think.

[eyeball]

I ask you again Wilber, would you try to lecture a kid, and reinforce the state's message about the evils of drugs, with a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other? Why?

I have solutions by there's not much point in discussing them until the problems have been identified.

[Wilber]

I ask you again Wilber, would you try to lecture a kid, and reinforce the state's message about the evils of drugs, with a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other? Why?

No I wouldn't and you are avoiding the issue.

[stevoh]

IOW - you want to shield the addict from the consequences of their addiction by making them believe that someone is going take care of them if they screw up. Fear of death by overdose is one of the reasons that some addicts clean up. Take that away you will prolong the addiction.

Wow, just... wow. You are willing to let some people die as a warning to others. Even though we clearly have both the ability and access to life saving drugs. Narcan costs less than a dollar an ampule, and saves many lives every year. Denying 80 cents worth of drugs because an addict may make a better example dead? Not a decision I would ever make.

You also normalize the behavoir by giving it a veneer of social respectability. This also enables the addition.

Have you been to a safe injection site? I don't think any of these users are believing that the safe injection site implies any form of social respectability. Addicts are far beyond even caring if they are respectable or not. Any person who would pass out in an alley in a puddle of their own puke is not too worried about appearing socially respectable.

The action of going to a safe injection site in itself is an addict taking more PERSONAL responsibility for their addiction than they otherwise would. It is a recognization of the dangers of drug use, and a conscious decision to attempt to reduce those dangers. It is that attitude of personal responsibility that needs to be nurtured, as it may lead to self motivated treatment. Self motivated treatment is the most successful treatment of any form (as opposed to court mandated or otherwise forced).

Only helpful if the treatment facilities are available. Getting people into treatment should be the first priority of places like insight - not an after thought. One of the biggest problems we have is almost all treatment facilities require that an addict be clean before they go in. We should be taking the medical staff that work at insight and employing them at treatment facilities that detox addicts that show a willingness to clean up.

If you have heavy handed staff that hammer home the "get treatment now" message you will deter many from repeated use of insite. Here is what actually occurs:

http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm

Clients who enter Insite are assessed and led through a waiting area to a 12-seat injection room where they can inject their own drugs under the supervision of trained medical staff. They have access to clean injection equipment including spoons, tourniquets and water, aimed at reducing the spread of infectious diseases.

After injecting, they move to a post-injection room where, if appropriate, staff can connect clients with other on-site services. These include primary care for the treatment of wounds, abscesses and other infections; addiction counseling and peer support; and referral to treatment services such as withdrawal management, opiate replacement therapy and other services.

Along with the on-site coordinator, two registered nurses are present at all times with an addiction counsellor and physician support available on-call. Program assistants from our partner, the PHS Community Services Society, help greet and register people, as well as provide peer contact to encourage safe injection practices and orient drug users to use the site.

Insite is a first step for an addict. Its firstly about harm reduction, then secondly provides a starting point for an addicts long road to recovery. It gets addicts off of the street, and is the first tiny step to taking some personal responsibility for their actions. This is why the site is supported by the local Vancouver Police force, the people who deal with addicts and the issues surrounding those addicts every day. Insite works.

[Wild Bill]

We know nothing of the sort, people just keep saying it like it was some sort of truth. The fact is there will always be some sort of control over drugs even if they are legal, they are just too destructive not to be, which means there will always be criminals trying to get around those controls because it will be profitable to do so. Tobacco is legal yet we have major cigarette smuggling operations making a fortune.

You are the same as eyeball, no solutions other than pointing at booze and alcohol. We have thousands dieing from the effects of those drugs, why not legalize everything else so we can have thousands more dieing of other drugs. Sure education is important but what does that have to do with legalization. You would think the fact something is illegal would give you a hint that perhaps it isn't good for you.

Simply not true. The vast majority of people who have used marijuana and even cocaine have suffered no ill effects. There is a certain percentage of people who will get themselves all messed up on SOMETHING! Take away their cocaine and they will switch to Jack Daniels. They will always find something.

We have cigarette smuggling because the taxes are obscenely high. That's where the criminals get their profit. Al Capone paid off politicians to keep booze illegal. It would not surprise me if we have some politicians on the take today. It's public record that it happens in drug-king states like Florida.

When you state that we have thousands dying from using drugs you're not posing the real question. All those deaths have nothing to do with drugs being illegal. Those who died had no trouble obtaining them, despite all the money and resources we have devoted to stamping them out. The real question is if spending those monies and resources makes any difference at all! If people are going to do it and trying to prevent it is an exercise in futility then why spend the money? The same number of people are going to die anyway. If drugs were legal and not taxed far above the street price then no one would be pushing them! The crime would disappear and A LOT more money would be available for treatment and education!

Sorry, but to me your argument sounds like a scientist who has already made up his mind and has spent a lifetime trying to find an experiment that proves his premise, while ignoring hundreds that disprove it. You just don't seem to be dealing with the world as it is but rather as you WISH to see it!

This is your right, of course. I just resent being taxed for a futile effort with no positive results.

Then again, as a Canadian, what else is new?

[Wilber]

Simply not true. The vast majority of people who have used marijuana and even cocaine have suffered no ill effects. There is a certain percentage of people who will get themselves all messed up on SOMETHING! Take away their cocaine and they will switch to Jack Daniels. They will always find something.

And the vast majority of those who use heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamines suffer major ill effects.

We have cigarette smuggling because the taxes are obscenely high. That's where the criminals get their profit. Al Capone paid off politicians to keep booze illegal. It would not surprise me if we have some politicians on the take today. It's public record that it happens in drug-king states like Florida.

So much for the legalize and tax it argument. Considering the amount of money involved I wouldn't be surprised if we have some corruption in the system either.

If drugs were legal and not taxed far above the street price then no one would be pushing them! The crime would disappear and A LOT more money would be available for treatment and education!

What does that mean, drug companies and governments should go into the heroin, cocaine, meth and ecstasy business or does the sale of drugs with no known source or quality control not bother you? Crime will not disappear if Canada alone legalizes these drugs because it is an international trade and the Canadian market is small compared to the US and other countries but we are a great place for drug dealers to do business because of our legal system.

Sorry, but to me your argument sounds like a scientist who has already made up his mind and has spent a lifetime trying to find an experiment that proves his premise, while ignoring hundreds that disprove it. You just don't seem to be dealing with the world as it is but rather as you WISH to see it!

I would say right back atcha. What have you proved? You are maintaining a premise that has never been proved because there is no jurisdiction in the world that I know of (at least none where any of us would want to live) where all drugs are legal. I haven't made up my mind nor do I know the answers but I sure haven't accepted the Pollyanna notion that if we just legalize everything, all will be OK.

[Riverwind]

Wow, just... wow. You are willing to let some people die as a warning to others. Even though we clearly have both the ability and access to life saving drugs.

I don't see the point of getting in the way if someone is determined to commit suicide. I have made it clear that I believe the government needs to invest a lot more in providing treatment to those who are willing to help themselves. I just don't see the point of coddling those who aren't.

The action of going to a safe injection site in itself is an addict taking more PERSONAL responsibility for their addiction than they otherwise would.

Great. If the stats show that addicts who attend insight are more likely to clean up than those who don't then I will change my opinion. However, I am sceptical because the advocates spend way too much time justifying harm reduction as an end in itself.

[eyeball]

No I wouldn't and you are avoiding the issue.

No, you're missing it. The issue is, should the state apply the law against people equally for engaging in the same activity?

People that drink are doing so to alter their mental states, to 'unwind' as its coloquailly known. When gathering socially with other people that are also unwinding, alcohol is also refered to as a social lubricant. This refers to the effect alcohol has on people's brain chemistry. People are getting high.

Lets go back to the colour coded bus for a minute.

There was once a time when white people were not allowed to sit at the back of the bus, only black people had this priviledge. There are any number of reason why a white person might want to sit at the back, he might not like the driver, or she could be afraid of a collision, or maybe because they just feel like it. The point is, why should the state say otherwise if its alright for other people to sit at the back? Finally one day, a black lady who perhaps believed the law was unequal and unfair sat up at the front and by doing so, forced the authorities to make it okay for white people to sit at the back of the bus too.

The issue is, should the state be applying the law equally for people who engaging in the same activity, whether its riding in a bus or unwinding? I think Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says it should be.

Perhaps the issue could be framed this way. Is the law protecting society equally form the damage done by alcohol? Are people benefitting equally from the protection of the law? If I was a victim of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome I'd say no. If the Controlled Substances Act can be shown to be responsible for protecting higher numbers of babies from harm, FAS victms may not not in fact be benefitting equally from the law. Put yet another way has the legality of alcohol violated their Section 15 rights to equal protection and benefit of the law?

[Wilber]

The issue is, should the state be applying the law equally for people who engaging in the same activity, whether its riding in a bus or unwinding? I think Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says it should be.

Then take it to the Supremes.

[eyeball]

Then take it to the Supremes.

What do you think? Would you rather Parliament decide or perhaps this should go to referendum?

[Wilber]

What do you think? Would you rather Parliament decide or perhaps this should go to referendum?

Not interested. If you feel it is a Charter issue, that's your problem.

[stevoh]

I don't see the point of getting in the way if someone is determined to commit suicide. I have made it clear that I believe the government needs to invest a lot more in providing treatment to those who are willing to help themselves. I just don't see the point of coddling those who aren't.

Because, when you are struggling with addiction, you are not able to think about anything else. As time passes from your last fix, you get more and more desperate to score again. Any semblance of reason and ability to reduce harm within themselves is gone, the focus is singular, get more drugs.

When in this state, it is highly unlikely that people will voluntarily seek treatment. However, this does not mean they will not seek treatment in the future. Insite proves this.

There is a difference between "willing to help themselves" and "unable to receive help".

Great. If the stats show that addicts who attend insight are more likely to clean up than those who don't then I will change my opinion. However, I am sceptical because the advocates spend way too much time justifying harm reduction as an end in itself.

Insite was opened to target a specific group of people. They were the highest risk IV drug users, overdosing on a regular basis (peaked at 200 deaths in one year), and highest risk for HIV infection, Hep C infection, and hospitallization. This "Hardcore" group of drug users was, and this is key, THE LEAST LIKELY TO SEEK TREATMENT.

Rather than taking these users to jail or community court, officers instead took them to insite.

Within 6 months of insite opening the group of high risk users now using insite had a mortality rate of 0.

Within 18 months of insite opening the majority of these users were now seeking detox and treatment.

What you seem to be missing is that harm reduction is only part of a comprehensive drug strategy, its not the entire solution. Its like an AA step program. The first step is to take a modicum of personal responsibility by using a safe injection site. Then expert staff are there to help with the next steps, including the availability of 24 beds for detox.