Neocons oppose drug rehab centres

[Oleg Bach]

Where do you think the power of the neo-cons originates? Who do you think these fellows are? Questions questions questions???

Their forfathers are the men who made fortunes selling alcohol - weapons - early versions of pharma product - cocaine etc..The money was intergenerationally handed down as was the power to the ones that exist today - Opium? You would think that the production of the scurge would have declined with our military involvement..instead it has increased. Money from dope eventually finds it's way into our banking system and cleans itself.

Of course the neo-cons or the children and grandchildren of these jerks still like a nice establisment type of mafia still carry on the tradional ways of doing buisness..China still hates our guts for what the fathers and grandfathers did to their young and brilliant never to have been leadership. Don't be surprised by them at this point not wanting drug rehab or the concept to spread..It is simply bad for the buisness these parasites conduct.

[Riverwind]

From a public health point of view, there are some serious issues that go along with drug use; sharing needles, sharing pipes, etc. which present profound risks of spreading contagious diseases like AIDS, Hepatitis and TB.

Insight caters to a class of addicts that are willing and able to defer use until they can get to the facility. This means it works ok of heroine addicts who only need to shoot up once or twice a day but it does not work much for cocaine addicts that shoot up 8-10 times a day. This means that insight can only have a marginal effect on the spread contagious diseases because the most at risk group (cocaine addicts) don't use the facility for most of their injections.

Apart from anything else, I think this is an important component of harm reduction. I live in a community where drug use lead to a rather severe TB outbreak a couple of years ago, and one wonders if we could at least manage these things a little better, we could at least mitigate the harm to the general populace.

We don't have an infinite budget to spend on these things and it is important to invest the money we do have in the programs that provide the most return on investment. One of the problems with drug use is there are often small 'windows of opportunities' where the addict is so beaten down that they are willing to accept treatment. When these windows open is it very important get the addict into detox and treatment ASAP. Unfortunately, budget constraints means that addicts often have to wait to get a bed and the opportunity is missed. I think the money spent on Insight would be better spent on detox/treatment beds.

Incidently, the BC government recently closed some of its addiction councelling service offices in the GVA. These offices provided support to addicts that had already choosen to recover. In the meantime, Insight continues to get funding. Government priorities are completely screwed up by the media coverage on the issue. I believe more people are helped by the quiet recovery supports services that they used to offer than by flashy clinics which enable drug use.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Riverwind

[William Ashley]

If the government truly wanted to stamp out drug use all it would have to do is piss-test everyone and summarily execute them if they fail.

I bet people would eat less poppyseed if this were the case.

[William Ashley]

Here's an idea. How about we arrest every scumbag drug dealer and throw them in prison for twenty years? Then we arrest every addict and force them into treatment, and don't let them out until they're pronounced free of their addiction.

How are the conservatives going to make money if no one is around to deal their coke?

[Oleg Bach]

How are the conservatives going to make money if no one is around to deal their coke?

The conservatives keep cocaine legal in a very informal sort of way - coke money always finds it's way into the banking system..looking back in time - a hundred years ago the conservatives in Britian did not have a problem with their companies sending in tons of opium to China...it created a lot of wealth - Just like the moderns grandsons and daughters of old bootlegging conservatives - who still ride on the privledge that those ill gotten gains provided. Remember that all great privledge only comes from wealth - not class - and from that privledge comes power and control - all great fortunes always are created by crimminal activity - but age that activity for 60 years and the outcome is a thing called establishment - and why we respect and empower them I will never know.

[Oleg Bach]

How are the conservatives going to make money if no one is around to deal their coke?

The conservatives keep cocaine legal in a very informal sort of way - coke money always finds it's way into the banking system..looking back in time - a hundred years ago the conservatives in Britian did not have a problem with their companies sending in tons of opium to China...it created a lot of wealth - Just like the moderns grandsons and daughters of old bootlegging conservatives - who still ride on the privledge that those ill gotten gains provided. Remember that all great privledge only comes from wealth - not class - and from that privledge comes power and control - all great fortunes always are created by crimminal activity - but age that activity for 60 years and the outcome is a thing called establishment - and why we respect and empower them I will never know.

[Oleg Bach]

How are the conservatives going to make money if no one is around to deal their coke?

The conservatives keep cocaine legal in a very informal sort of way - coke money always finds it's way into the banking system..looking back in time - a hundred years ago the conservatives in Britian did not have a problem with their companies sending in tons of opium to China...it created a lot of wealth - Just like the moderns grandsons and daughters of old bootlegging conservatives - who still ride on the privledge that those ill gotten gains provided. Remember that all great privledge only comes from wealth - not class - and from that privledge comes power and control - all great fortunes always are created by crimminal activity - but age that activity for 60 years and the outcome is a thing called establishment - and why we respect and empower them I will never know.

[Shady]

The conservatives keep cocaine legal in a very informal sort of way - coke money always finds it's way into the banking system..looking back in time - a hundred years ago the conservatives in Britian did not have a problem with their companies sending in tons of opium to China...it created a lot of wealth - Just like the moderns grandsons and daughters of old bootlegging conservatives - who still ride on the privledge that those ill gotten gains provided. Remember that all great privledge only comes from wealth - not class - and from that privledge comes power and control - all great fortunes always are created by crimminal activity - but age that activity for 60 years and the outcome is a thing called establishment - and why we respect and empower them I will never know.

You're clearly insane.

[Oleg Bach]

You're clearly insane.

Take a huge human collective and compare it to an ant hill...a place where all the ants are blind and have no sense of taste or small...a million of them..then take one ant that can see taste and feel - that singular ant is neccesary for the surival of the collective - but in comparison to all the normal ants - that ant might appear to be evil or as you put it "insane" clearly insane and seeing clearly. For someone who needs a truth detector you sure are blind and I can see why you need a devise to detect reality...My previous post is spot on... If the powers that be wanted a civilized and lawfull world we would see evidence of such a world ...clearly we do not - so don't be upset or surprised of angry or aggressive..that's life buddy - the crimminals rule..and probably always have..get use to it.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm still trying to figure out why opposing this drug centre makes one a "neocon?"

It doesn't. By neocons in this case I simply meant the Feds. Although, it does seem to be part of the general neocon philosophy to oppose the idea of rehab, in almost any form. For example, they want to remove alot of the prison rehab programs, and not only for drugs.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Sir Bandelot]

My previous post is spot on... If the powers that be wanted a civilized and lawfull world we would see evidence of such a world ...clearly we do not - so don't be upset or surprised of angry or aggressive..that's life buddy - the crimminals rule..and probably always have..get use to it.

I understand what you are saying, and was going to say something similar in response to the idea that we should lock up all drug users for twenty years etc. How far does that idea go... if we are to execute it completely and fairly you would see a lot of prominent people, doctors, judges, politicians, business execs also go to jail for twenty years. In other words, people who you'd never guess were addicted and abusing substances. Pure coke is the rich mans drug... thus the penalties for it are generally less harsh than that of the crack coaine user, let alone the potheads. One can only conclude that the idea of inarceration for drug abuse is nothing to do with getting "criminals" off the streets, where no crime even really exists. Except that, somebody else in power calls it one.

[Shady]

It doesn't. By neocons in this case I simply meant the Feds.

There's hardly anything neoconservative about the conservative minority federal government.

Although, it does seem to be part of the general neocon philosophy to oppose the idea of rehab, in almost any form.

Really? What part of a so-called neocon philosophy opposes the idea of rehab IN ANY FORM? Your premise is extremely flawed.

For example, they want to remove alot of the prison rehab programs, and not only for drugs.

Not true. Your premise is again deeply flawed. The federal conservatives have insisted that if one rapes or murders somebody, they should serve a minimum amount of time in jail. Which the vast majority of Canadians agree with.

A drug rehab centre is much different than a supervised injection site. In most cases, people aren't being rehabed at all. They're just being given a clean and supervised place to get high, and continue their destructive dependence on damaging substances.

I don't think government should be encouraging the use of destructive drug use. That shouldn't be a conservative point of view. It definitely shouldn't be considered a neoconservative point of view. It should fall under the umbrella of logic and reason. Rehab is one thing. Enabling is another. Shame on you for trying to blur the two distinctions.

[eyeball]

I don't think government should be encouraging the use of destructive drug use.

Insite doesn't encourage people to get loaded anymore than a government run liquor store does.

[Shady]

Insite doesn't encourage people to get loaded anymore than a government run liquor store does.

Really? Is there a healthy dose of heroin that I'm unware of? How about a healthy dose of crack-cocaine? How does one go about using methamphetamines responsibly?

I know when I'm watching a good football game, there's nothing like a cold beer, or finding a vein and shooting up!

But I do agree with you on one point. The government should have no business selling beer and alcohol.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Really? Is there a healthy dose of heroin that I'm unware of? How about a healthy dose of crack-cocaine? How does one go about using methamphetamines responsibly?

Ask your doctor. Sometimes they are prescribed for certain things.

[DrGreenthumb]

Ask your doctor. Sometimes they are prescribed for certain things.

Its pretty easy to use cannabis responsibly, even easier than alcohol according to addictions experts.

[eyeball]

Really? Is there a healthy dose of heroin that I'm unware of?

How about a healthy dose of crack-cocaine? How does one go about using methamphetamines responsibly?

I know when I'm watching a good football game, there's nothing like a cold beer, or finding a vein and shooting up!

But I do agree with you on one point. The government should have no business selling beer and alcohol.

The fact it still does though undermines everything it has to say on the morality of substance use not to mention its ethics in opposing that use.

As for determining what a 'healthy' dose of heroin and what have you is I'd say that's probably an issue that's best left between a user and their doctor. Fighter pilots for example use meth-amphetamines routinely.

[Sir Bandelot]

There's hardly anything neoconservative about the conservative minority federal government.

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and look into it, to see why you feel that way. My view has been that Harper et al are devoted followers of Leo Strauss, and admire the style of Ronald Reagan.

Really? What part of a so-called neocon philosophy opposes the idea of rehab IN ANY FORM? Your premise is extremely flawed.

I try to never make empirical statements. It's not entirely flawed if you read carefully, I said "Although, it does seem to be part of the general neocon philosophy to oppose the idea of rehab, in almost any form." Now we can argue if thats a neocon thing or not, but it does seem to be a Harper thing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/24/conservative-prison-plan024.html

http://www.newresilient.com/2009/03/02/federal-government-to-close-prison-farms-and-end-rehabilitation-program/

and their plans could even be dangerous to the public:

http://www.canada.com/news/Federal+prison+overhaul+plan+dismissed+amateur+alarming/2028026/story.html

I don't think government should be encouraging the use of destructive drug use. That shouldn't be a conservative point of view. It definitely shouldn't be considered a neoconservative point of view. It should fall under the umbrella of logic and reason. Rehab is one thing. Enabling is another. Shame on you for trying to blur the two distinctions.

If I was a bad boy, I will wear my conservative veil of shame for the day.

[GostHacked]

If the feds truely wanted to shut insite down, all they'd need to do was post a couple mounties outside its doors, and search people on entry, have a cruiser standing by and backlog the courts for small time possesion charges of scheduled drugs like heroin. Or send in the remote surviellance and drones to monitor their buying habits of repeat users - they have to be getting it from somewhere. I'm sure selectively they could hit a lot of dealers if they wanted to.

Our taxes would then go to law enforcement and incarceration. Insite gives us a new view on it all. If we treat it as a health care issue, and give the chance for many of these drug addicts to seek help and rehabilitation, they can work towards being contributing members of society. This way one can feel like people care and want to help. Locking them up does not show any compassion for addicts/end users, and will eventually turn them back to drugs when released from prison. A good deal of them just end up back in the prison system. This approach has not worked yet. It is insane to try the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

We treat most mental health issues with rehab clinics, why can't we treat drug addicts in the same manner? You will get a reduction in second round addicts. You will prevent people from entering the prison system the first time, which will prevent the second time and third time. Mr. Jones has been booked again at the local PD for drug possession. Catch, release.

If the Insite center does help facilitate more people seeking rehab, you will have a much higher success rate for people willing to get off the drugs. Most don't know how to help themselves in their drug use. Offer them a chance to get out of the hurting and suffereing. In the end the willpower of the addict needs to be there. But when they are ready to get off the drugs, we should be there to help them however we can.

Compassion goes much farther than incarceration.

[Shady]

Its pretty easy to use cannabis responsibly, even easier than alcohol according to addictions experts.

I don't think an INJECTION site has much to do with cannabis.

[Riverwind]

I said "Although, it does seem to be part of the general neocon philosophy to oppose the idea of rehab, in almost any form."

Your own links don't even support your claims.

Rather, "the changes we're proposing [are] to improve our system, protect society more and make sure offenders get the help they need," particularly mental illness treatment, Van Loan said.

The government wants to create an incentive system for prisoners to participate in rehabilitation programs, "because that's important for not just the safety of society, which is … the most important principle, but also for the prisoner to integrate into the community ultimately," he said.

The current practice of statutory release is the "wrong approach," he added.

"That means somebody has a nine-year sentence; at six years, even if they're not participating in their programs, they're automatically … released into society."

His approach makes sense. If a drug addict commits a crime they should be kept in jail until they accept treatment. Edited January 18, 2010 by Riverwind

[fellowtraveller]

Why should Vancouver have to take on a bigger share of the burden?

Because you have the conditions - three of which are a large, long established doper community, easy to obtain social services, and a relatively mild climate. Change all those, and you'll have fewer junkies coming your way. There won't be fewer junkies overall, they will just move because they are addcits. There won't be fewer junkies, they'll just move to wherever those conditions are possible or partly possible. Victoria perhaps?

This talk of 'neocons' is laughable. It is how children, retarded children at that, pigeonhole people they disagree with or think they do.

By the standards of this board I am a consrvative. I support universal access to health care, public education, abortion on demand, and this Insite facility. Go ahead, call me Hitler.

The reason to support Insite is that the clean injection conditions will help some folks stay alive long enough to get to rehab eventually. If you oppose the idea of drug rehab, you have to consider the actual cost of keeping junkies with AIDS and Hep C alive, when those diseases may be avoided easily at Insite.

[eyeball]

Because you have the conditions - three of which are a large, long established doper community, easy to obtain social services, and a relatively mild climate. Change all those, and you'll have fewer junkies coming your way. There won't be fewer junkies overall, they will just move because they are addcits. There won't be fewer junkies, they'll just move to wherever those conditions are possible or partly possible. Victoria perhaps?

This talk of 'neocons' is laughable. It is how children, retarded children at that, pigeonhole people they disagree with or think they do.

By the standards of this board I am a consrvative. I support universal access to health care, public education, abortion on demand, and this Insite facility. Go ahead, call me Hitler.

The reason to support Insite is that the clean injection conditions will help some folks stay alive long enough to get to rehab eventually. If you oppose the idea of drug rehab, you have to consider the actual cost of keeping junkies with AIDS and Hep C alive, when those diseases may be avoided easily at Insite.

I agree with keeping Insite open too. I think what you're saying about a warm climate is valid. I think your comment on the availability of services is only partially valid though, because Insite is only available in Vancouver. The link between the availability of services and the number of people drawn to them is very clear. The proof is found in the comparison to people with mental disease which generally goes hand in hand with addiction as do most of the public's attitudes towards these.

As I mentioned, in my town people here pressured the municipal government to deny a zoning by-law change that would have allowed a local motel complex to be used as an assisted living facility. My research into this issue at the time included a few discussions with administrators of homeless shelters in Victoria and Vancouver and these made it quite clear that many homeless people in these cities are from small outlying communities. The reason for this is that people with mental illness and addiction, especially in small communities often fell stigmatised and so they seek the anonymity of the big city. The fact services are usually non-existent in small communities cannot be ignored.

The comments about Vancouver's long established doper community leave the impression that Insite is only welcome here because west coasters approve of drug use in a way that other Canadians don't. Perhaps...OTOH perhaps west-coasters are simply more humane, notwithstanding the occasional NIMBY in the small town I happen to live in.

I'm pretty sure I recall reading similar observations about Amsterdam that support what I'm saying - that only making drugs legal or available in only one place will result in that place becoming a magnet for drug users. Again, no community should have to bear the full weight of a social problem that has no jurisdictional boundary.

Edited January 18, 2010 by eyeball

[nicky10013]

I agree with keeping Insite open too. I think what you're saying about a warm climate is valid. I think your comment on the availability of services is only partially valid though, because Insite is only available in Vancouver. The link between the availability of services and the number of people drawn to them is very clear. The proof is found in the comparison to people with mental disease which generally goes hand in hand with addiction as do most of the public's attitudes towards these.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=3&t=15688

As I mentioned, in my town people here pressured the municipal government to deny a zoning by-law change that would have allowed a local motel complex to be used as an assisted living facility. My research into this issue at the time included a few discussions with administrators of homeless shelters in Victoria and Vancouver and these made it quite clear that many homeless people in these cities are from small outlying communities. The reason for this is that people with mental illness and addiction, especially in small communities often fell stigmatised and so they seek the anonymity of the big city. The fact services are usually non-existent in small communities cannot be ignored.

The comments about Vancouver's long established doper community leave the impression that Insite is only welcome here because west coasters approve of drug use in a way that other Canadians don't. Perhaps...OTOH perhaps west-coasters are simply more humane, notwithstanding the occasional NIMBY in the small town I happen to live in.

I'm pretty sure I recall reading similar observations about Amsterdam that support what I'm saying - that only making drugs legal or available in only one place will result in that place becoming a magnet for drug users. Again, no community should have to bear the full weight of a social problem that has no jurisdictional boundary.

The entirety of the Netherlands has the same drug policy as Amsterdam. Furthermore, the Netherlands and Amsterdam as a whole has a per capita addiction rate lower than any other western country. They're easy on users and strict with distributers. You can't treat users like common criminals and throw them into prison and force them into treatment. I wonder how well rehab goes with an unwilling participant.

In the end, drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem. The act of distribution is another matter entirely. Our drug policies have to be pragmatic and not empassioned or ideological. We have to look at what works best in reducing crime in drug infested areas, decreases the amount of disease and increases the percentage of people getting into rehab as well as strong support systems for people who get out so they don't slip and when they do have a place to go to in order to ensure they don't completely fall back into the grips of addiction. Throwing people in prison just doesn't work. Look at our friends down south. 85% of all people in the US penal system are there due to drugs.

Edited January 19, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Throwing people in prison just doesn't work. Look at our friends down south. 85% of all people in the US penal system are there due to drugs.

.....and that includes drug trafficking, associated violence / murder, possession, etc....not just personal use. Canada has far more drug offences per capita than the USA according to this source:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences