Insite Ruling poses danger on a number of fronts

[olp1fan]

I can't find any information on it - do you have a link? Thanks. And is Insite just open on the weekends?

my bad that prog is for catching drunk drivers

[Argus]

Well I guess the only solution to get you people who simply can't abide illegality is to legalize drugs.

Would that make you go away? I suspect it would given I don't see any of you marching up and down protesting safe ingestion sites or the various liquor control acts the government uses to enable them.

Why is that by the way?

This is always a stupid comparison. Millions of people regularly ingest alcohol with no ill-effects whatever. A few weaklings and fools become addicted. Sorry about that.

But no one regularly shoots up with heroin and doesn't suffer ill effects. No one regularly shoots up with heroin and doesn't become addicted. You think the people who visit your Insite clinic are fine, upstanding citizens? They're prostitutes, welfare lifers, burglars, muggers, pimps and thieves.

[cybercoma]

I don't want to live in a society where we don't help those people, as well as everyone else.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't want to live in a society where we don't help those people, as well as everyone else.

Again. The best "help" one could give them is to get them off of drugs. Continual use is a slow death.

[cybercoma]

Again. The best "help" one could give them is to get them off of drugs. Continual use is a slow death.

You don't say.

[Guest American Woman]

You don't say.

Yeah, I do. I did say, I do say, and will continue to say. In other words, government money going to mandatory rehab rather than assisting in illegal activity will continue to be my stance; that it would do the most good will continue to be my stance.

I don't know who here is advocating "not helping them;" we just aren't advocating the government helping them engage in harmful, illegal activity.

[cybercoma]

I don't know who here is advocating "not helping them;" we just aren't advocating the government helping them engage in harmful, illegal activity.

No one is advocating that either. You quite simply refuse to acknowledge that Insite is a medical facility designed to be a first step towards recovery. You're ignoring the fact that Onsite operates on the same premises. It seems to me that you also think it's simple to put people into mandatory rehab, but how do you get access to them when they're doing everything they can to hide from the police so they don't get arrested? Insite is a brilliant tool for getting access to communities that healthcare facilities and rehab clinics do not typically have access to. Cops are not picking up "junkies" and throwing them in rehab. They're throwing them in jail, where they continue to do drugs and learn how to be criminals. If your aim is to get people off drugs, then you would support Insite. Your aim is to lock drug addicts away or let them kill themselves, rather than humanely getting them off the drugs.

[eyeball]

This is always a stupid comparison. Millions of people regularly ingest alcohol with no ill-effects whatever.

I wasn't comparing the effects of different mind altering substances, I was comparing the different effects of the government's policies towards people who are all doing the same fundamental thing, altering their mental state.

The precedent the Insite ruling sets is that the government's policies will have to be based on real scientific evidence instead of the political and moral reasons that all to often suffice.

But no one regularly shoots up with heroin and doesn't suffer ill effects. No one regularly shoots up with heroin and doesn't become addicted.

No one regularly smokes cigarettes without this happening either, so what's your point?

You think the people who visit your Insite clinic are fine, upstanding citizens? They're prostitutes, welfare lifers, burglars, muggers, pimps and thieves.

You're telling me there's not one single prostitute, welfare lifer, burglar, mugger, pimp or thief amongst all the millions of people who drink? You see, your's is the sort of junk reasoning that the Insite ruling and precedent directly targets and will continue to undermine forever, hopefully. The only way to undo this now is to open up the constitution.

Good luck with that.

[Argus]

I don't want to live in a society where we don't help those people, as well as everyone else.

I'd be pleased to help them. And I'd be willing to spend a lot more money doing so. By institutionalizing them for their own good and ensuring they get the best rehab and followup before being released.

[eyeball]

I'd be pleased to help them. And I'd be willing to spend a lot more money doing so. By institutionalizing them for their own good and ensuring they get the best rehab and followup before being released.

Fair enough, now you and more to the point Ottawa, has to prove the institution it proposes to do this with won't cause more harm than good. So far neither of you have been able or willing to do so.

Are you really sure you'd be pleased to help them? That just doesn't ring true I'm afraid because there's just too much evidence to the contrary.