Giving junk to Junkies

[Black Dog]

Perhaps we need to raise the bar a tad bit.

Well, we've already established you don't give a shit about addicts, so I'm not sure what else there is to say on this to you except the usual

[Shady]

Well, we've already established you don't give a shit about addicts, so I'm not sure what else there is to say on this to you except the usual

Right. Not wanted to subsidize a prolonged, ever-lasting drug addiction which leads to a horrible, unproductive life isn't caring about drug addicts. However, facilitating their addiction, while providing absolutely no treatment or end to their problem is the real caring.

That's how f'ed up things are in our society these days.

[Black Dog]

Right. Not wanted to subsidize a prolonged, ever-lasting drug addiction which leads to a horrible, unproductive life isn't caring about drug addicts. However, facilitating their addiction, while providing absolutely no treatment or end to their problem is the real caring.

That's how f'ed up things are in our society these days.

Yeah, advocating providing addicts with lethal doses of heroin is so very humane.

[BubberMiley]

Right. Not wanted to subsidize a prolonged, ever-lasting drug addiction which leads to a horrible, unproductive life isn't caring about drug addicts.

How did you go from calling for the murder of addicts to not wanting to subsidize their terrible addiction because you care so much? Why the sudden about-face?

[Shakeyhands]

However, facilitating their addiction, while providing absolutely no treatment or end to their problem is the real caring.

That's how f'ed up things are in our society these days.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject first, you know, try a new tact???

Insight

[Shady]

Yeah, advocating providing addicts with lethal doses of heroin is so very humane.

I was being satirical. However, I'd consider that as humane as infinitely facilitating a debilitating addiction without any process for actual treatment. I think there has to be some type of treatment attached to giving so-called junk to junkies. Otherwise you're just subsidizing horrible addictions without end. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

[Black Dog]

I was being satirical. However, I'd consider that as humane as infinitely facilitating a debilitating addiction without any process for actual treatment. I think there has to be some type of treatment attached to giving so-called junk to junkies. Otherwise you're just subsidizing horrible addictions without end. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

InSite facilitates addiction treatment by providing access to such services (OffSite). They don't provide the service themselves (because that's not its role) and it's not a condition of use (because you can't force someone to quit).

[Guest Manny]

InSite facilitates addiction treatment by providing access to such services (OffSite). They don't provide the service themselves (because that's not its role) and it's not a condition of use (because you can't force someone to quit).

Indeed, much like they say cannabis is the "gateway" to harder drugs, Insite is the "gateway" to quitting.

[jacee]

Sure, if they're having their drugs provided to them at no charge on the tax payers dime.

I just want to be very clear about what you are saying:

Shady says: Drug addicts should be murdered.

Does that accurately capture your opinion, Shady?

What about trying to get them into treatment?

At what point would they become 'legal' prey?

What criteria would you use to determine their eligibility for your death penalty?

There are lots of wealthy drug addicts ... are they exempt because they pay their own way?

IE, Are you targeting only the poor and homeless addicts?

Well, perhaps reducing addiction should be part of the process. Otherwise, we're just facilitating continued and ever-lasting addiction. How are these people suppose to ever lead productive lives?

Of course it is an element of the program. (You've read none of the program info, correct?) There is a related addiction treatment centre ('Onsite'), and over 5000 people were referred there in 2010, out of the over 12,000 who used Insite.

The Insite program itself is only a harm reduction program: Addicts do not have to agree to treatment, but are encouraged and supported in doing so.

You do realize that 'counselling murder' is a crime in itself?

(Just ask Tom Flanagan. )

It's quite disturbing that you would make such an extreme and possibly criminal statement without even having read any of the documents provided here that that could inform you about the goals and outcomes of the program.

[Spiderfish]

Well, not dying in an alley is a good start.

Whether they shoot up in the alley, or shoot up in a 'treatment facility' and then go OD in the alley, the outcome is the same. These facilities are not meant to address that part of drug addiction, only make it safer to shoot up, reducing the risk of infectious disease.

[Black Dog]

Whether they shoot up in the alley, or shoot up in a 'treatment facility' and then go OD in the alley, the outcome is the same. These facilities are not meant to address that part of drug addiction, only make it safer to shoot up, reducing the risk of infectious disease.

And to prevent overdoses. Derp.

[jacee]

I was being satirical.

Ah, well maybe Flanagan was just foolin around.

http://canadiandimension.com/blog/3557/

However, I'd consider that as humane as infinitely facilitating a debilitating addiction without any process for actual treatment.

There is.

There are also sickos who think they're doing the world a favour by 'putting addicts out of their misery'.

When they're caught, they go to jail or to institutions for the criminally insane.

I think there has to be some type of treatment attached to giving so-called junk to junkies.

It's available in the same building.

Otherwise you're just subsidizing horrible addictions without end. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

Please provide evidence that Insite has increased drug addiction.

This is a very generalized and unsupported statement.

And it certainly doesn't justify murder or counselling murder.

-eta-

Do you advocate the same 'treatment' for alcoholics as for drug addicts?

Edited April 12, 2012 by jacee

[dre]

The health risk and medical support is 100 fold what these other examples would require. Someone who smokes or habitually crosses the street on red lights may be making poor choices, but government and medical support for people in this category is nowhere near what a drug addict will undoubtedly require. The comparison is not even close.

Theres no evidence to support any of that. Ending prohibition would reduce the burden addicts place on society not increase it.

Edited April 12, 2012 by dre

[jacee]

Well, not dying in an alley is a good start.

Thanks Black Dog.

I needed that.

[Spiderfish]

Theres no evidence to support any of that. Ending prohibition would reduce the burden addicts place on society not increase it.

You're kidding...right?

[Black Dog]

You're kidding...right?

Think of all the resources that would be available to treatment, addiction programs and the health care system that are currently being sucked into the black hole of the war on drugs.

[dre]

You're kidding...right?

Nope not at all. The best thing you can do to reduce drug problems is to end criminalisation, and treat addiction as a regular health issue. Its actually quite treatable.

The only real example we have of a western nation with successful drug policy is Portugal.

They decriminalized ALL drugs about 10 years ago. Since then drug abuse has declined by half, and drug use is down in all age groups, HIV is down, drug related homicides and violence are down. Whats gone way up is the number of people seeking treatment.

Many of these innovative treatment procedures would not have emerged if addicts had continued to be arrested and locked up rather than treated by medical experts and psychologists. Currently 40,000 people in Portugal are being treated for drug abuse. This is a far cheaper, far more humane way to tackle the problem. Rather than locking up 100,000 criminals, the Portuguese are working to cure 40,000 patients and fine-tuning a whole new canon of drug treatment knowledge at the same time.

So theres just no evidence to support the claims you are making. I know they SEEM right to you... it "seems" right that use would go up with decriminalization, and there would be more health issues. The problem is that its completely wrong, and unsupported by any evidence.

[Spiderfish]

Think of all the resources that would be available to treatment, addiction programs and the health care system that are currently being sucked into the black hole of the war on drugs.

No doubt...but I don't buy the line that there's no evidence suggesting heroin addiction is not a health risk or does not increase the burden on the health system.

If we were talking about treatment of addiction, I would be on board. But we're simply talking about making it easier and safer for addicts to shoot up. Never mind the obvious fact that 'safe injection sites' is a contradiction in terms.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Spiderfish]

Nope not at all. The best thing you can do to reduce drug problems is to end criminalisation, and treat addiction as a regular health issue. Its actually quite treatable.

I agree that addiction is treatable. Too bad that's not the objective of these 'treatment centres'.

[PIK]

Except safe injection sites aren't intended to reduce addiction.

You are right and lets call it what it is, supervised injection sites. And listening to the people that work the streets in vancouver have said it is a failure, aids and hep c I think it is is waaay up. How do you call something safe when you are allowing them to inject poisen into thier arms. It does not help anyone but tyhe guy with the job to over see it, it has become the victim industry, and you can not clean it up, too many jobs on the line. And what is going on is dealers hang close to these sites because the police are not allowed to touch anyone with in a certain distance and they are selling needles (free needles that type 1 diabetes people have to pay for)already loaded for a couple of bucks to the people going to the sites. And of course the stealing and mugging for drugs that goes on before they head to the site.This has nothing to do with helping people , it just give the left something to do and get paid well for it and that poor drug addicts expense. These are people not ATM machines.

[Black Dog]

No doubt...but I don't buy the line that there's no evidence suggesting heroin addiction is not a health risk or does not increase the burden on the health system.

Well no one said heroin is not a health risk (in fact that's why it's being suggested it be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one). There's also no evidence legalization or decriminalization would increase the burden on the system.

If we were talking about treatment of addiction, I would be on board. But we're simply talking about making it easier and safer for addicts to shoot up. Never mind the obvious fact that 'safe injection sites' is a contradiction in terms.

No. Your're talking about just making it easier and safer for addicts to shoot up. Everyone else is talking about supervised injection sites as part of a broader strategy that would include addiction treatment. Places like InSite are but the first step in the continuum of treatment.

[Black Dog]

You are right and lets call it what it is, supervised injection sites. And listening to the people that work the streets in vancouver have said it is a failure, aids and hep c I think it is is waaay up.

Do "people on the street" trump the actual science?

How do you call something safe when you are allowing them to inject poisen into thier arms.

because they are going to inject the poison in their arms anyway, might as well do it in place where they can't OD or share needles with someone else.

It does not help anyone but tyhe guy with the job to over see it, it has become the victim industry, and you can not clean it up, too many jobs on the line.

Nonsense.

And what is going on is dealers hang close to these sites because the police are not allowed to touch anyone with in a certain distance and they are selling needles (free needles that type 1 diabetes people have to pay for)already loaded for a couple of bucks to the people going to the sites. And of course the stealing and mugging for drugs that goes on before they head to the site.

Hmm, sounds like an argument for legalization/decriminalization to me.

This has nothing to do with helping people , it just give the left something to do and get paid well for it and that poor drug addicts expense. These are people not ATM machines.

Yeah, because so many people get rich as social workers.

[dre]

I agree that addiction is treatable. Too bad that's not the objective of these 'treatment centres'.

Treatment centers were not all that was being discussed.

Theres no evidence to support any of that. Ending prohibition would reduce the burden addicts place on society not increase it.

You're kidding...right?

[Spiderfish]

Well no one said heroin is not a health risk (in fact that's why it's being suggested it be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one). There's also no evidence legalization or decriminalization would increase the burden on the system.

Okay, lets just review what was said...

The health risk and medical support is 100 fold what these other examples would require. Someone who smokes or habitually crosses the street on red lights may be making poor choices, but government and medical support for people in this category is nowhere near what a drug addict will undoubtedly require. The comparison is not even close.

Tow which Dre replied...

Theres no evidence to support any of that. Ending prohibition would reduce the burden addicts place on society not increase it.

To which I replied...

You're kidding...right?

Notice in my initial comment I said nothing of decriminalization or legalization. I was discussing the issue from a social and medical perspective, pointing out the obvious fact that a heroin addict will be much more likely to be a burden on the system than someone that engages in j-walking. Dre disagreed. It was then Dre that brought the decriminalization and legal issue into the discussion.

[cybercoma]

Drug addiction is not a criminal justice issue. It's a medical issue. These people need medical help and treatment. They sure as hell don't need to be put behind bars and given criminal records. In another generation we'll look back on the way we treated drug addiction today the same way we look back today at the way they treated mental illness in the nineteenth century and shake our heads. Using drugs is not something that should be a crime, forcing it underground and putting a huge barrier before people that want to get help. This is just archaic thinking that needs to end.