Giving junk to Junkies

[Guest Manny]

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.

Hope so. But prohibition has been around for something like 70 years already. That's a lot of generations.

[Guest Peeves]

Excerpt, more at link.

VANCOUVER — Crack addicts in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside have started receiving free crack pipes as part of a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority harm reduction strategy aimed at curbing the spread of disease.

Part of a $60,000 trial project first announced in August, the pipes are just one piece of drug paraphernalia found inside kits that have been distributed to users in the troubled neighbourhood since the beginning of the month.

The glass pipes are heat-resistant and shatterproof, which experts say should reduce injury to the users’ lips and mouth — wounds that can make them more susceptible to diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C.

Also included are mouthpieces, filters, alcohol swabs, screens and push sticks.

While harm reduction tools such as these have been made available to addicts in the past, this marks the first time that they have been combined in a single kit, said Trudi Beutel, a spokesperson for the health authority.

Related

Vancouver set to offer free crack pipes

Anti-overdose kit is raising the controversial spectre of harm reduction

Harm-reduction court ruling could swing Canada’s anti-prostitution laws

Smoking pot, in moderation, doesn't damage your lungs: U.S. study

Drug suspect turns up in court in shirt emblazoned with crack recipe

In total, 60,000 kits are expected to be distributed at five locations during an eight-month trial period.

“What this boils down to is it’s about disease prevention,” said Beutel. “It’s about preventing more communicable diseases which land these people in hospital on a frequent basis and clog up emergency rooms.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/30/vancouver-health-body-begins-free-crack-pipe-program-for-addicts/

[cybercoma]

Do you have a point to make about that, Peeves?

[jacee]

Hope so. But prohibition has been around for something like 70 years already. That's a lot of generations.

Harm reduction methods of treatment, however, are relatively new and their success in reducing harm by bringing drug use out of the 'closet' is fuelling new discussions about the potential benefits of legalization of drugs as a means of reducing their harm to users and to society in general.

In particular, the leaders of the major drug producing countries in America are saying that the major problem created by prohibition of drugs is organized crime, and the way to defeat organized crime is legalization of drugs.

[Guest Peeves]

Do you have a point to make about that, Peeves?

Any point would be pointless, but my mammy and grandmammy must have thought sin was fer sinners.

Now, sin is free or taxable.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/26/ontario-court-of-appeal-greenlights-brothels-sweeps-aside-many-of-canadas-anti-prostitution-laws/?__lsa=50277a57

Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws

in Toronto Monday after the Court of Appeal for Ontario swept aside some of the country's anti-prostitution laws.

LEGAL: Hiring drivers, bodyguards and support staff

ILLEGAL: “Exploitation” of sex workers by pimps

LEGAL: Working in organized brothels or “bawdy houses”

ILLEGAL: Openly soliciting customers on the street

TORONTO – The Court of Appeal for Ontario has swept aside some of the country’s anti-prostitution laws saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes’ ability to protect themselves.

The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels or “bawdy houses,” while “exploitation” by pimps remains illegal.

When I was a young lad my mama tol me thet drugs, prostitutes and gamblin were bad, now the government is pushin all three.

[jacee]

Any point would be pointless, but my mammy and grandmammy must have thought sin was fer sinners.

Now, sin is free or taxable.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/26/ontario-court-of-appeal-greenlights-brothels-sweeps-aside-many-of-canadas-anti-prostitution-laws/?__lsa=50277a57

When I was a young lad my mama tol me thet drugs, prostitutes and gamblin were bad, now the government is pushin all three.

Nobody's "pushin" you into anything peeves.

You still get to make your own choices about what's good and bad for yourself.

So does everybody else. Government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make those decisions for us, nor in trying to police our morality for us.

Edited April 15, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

When I was a young lad my mama tol me thet drugs, prostitutes and gamblin were bad, now the government is pushin all three.

How are they pushing those on you?

[Guest Peeves]

How are they pushing those on you?

First, were did I state " Pushing On " me?

Second. Why direct a question at me?

I referred to specific issues and the governments position on them. Certain people SOOOO like to redirect issues at the poster rather than the subject..

In case that's too subtle for you few, it's the governments position on prostitution, drugs and gambling not Mrs. Peeves little boy that's at point. I offer an opinion. Stick to the subject.

I think the government is becoming all too concerned about promoting and taxing sin that they have forgotten that to many like my mammy, still considers those practices as immoral and sinning.

Certainly the old 'blue' laws, no stores open Sunday, No gambling or sports or sales of contraceptives, or smut on t.v. etc. may have been too restrictive, too tied to religion, but are things really better morally than a generation ago? Then we knew what was right and wrong, today if you are disturbed by open gambling (Government sponsored), Porn, drugs or prostitution, it's you who is warped.

Still we seem ready to accept more DUI that goes with the booze that yields so much in taxes. More prostitution some of which is white slavery run by mobs or gangsters, more drug sites that accept drug use, drugs again controlled by the criminals,, more gambling casinos. More porn that depraves the internet and profits crime.

I simply think about it and perhaps so should you rather than redirecting the issue to be mine..it's a societal issue and a morality issue and it is becoming worse sez I.

"Sin Defined

It is easy for us to think of sin only in terms of I John 3:4, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." This verse, however, is a good place to begin. Sin is directly connected to breaking laws. "Law," especially in the Old Testament, frequently means the broader term "instruction." Thus, we have more to consider as sin than just the breaking of a specific law. However, sin is not a complicated concept.

Numerous terms in both Old and New Testaments describe sin, but collectively they all give the same sense: to deviate from a way, path or law; to fail to live up to a standard. We find two of these words, translated as "trespasses" and "sins," in Ephesians 2:1: "And you He has made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins."

Trespasses, from the Greek paraptoma, means "to go off a path, fall or slip aside." When it is applied to moral and ethical issues it means to deviate from the right way, to wander. Sins, the Greek hamartia, is generally associated with military usage and means to "miss the mark." It indicates failing to make a bull's-eye. In moral and ethical contexts, it means to fail of one's purpose, to go wrong, or to fail to live according to an accepted standard or ideal. Sin is the failure to be what we ought to be and could be.

The Hebrew equivalents of hamartia and paraptoma are chata and asham, respectively. In Hebrew, asham comes closest to meaning the actual breaking of a law; in Greek, it is anomos. Both of these will sometimes be translated "iniquity" or "lawlessness." (See E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, appendices 44 and 128.)"

Read more: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/489/What-Sin-Is-Does.htm#ixzz1sDDjB0tV

Edited April 16, 2012 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

If they're not pushing this on you, who are they pushing it on then? You said the government is pushing this.

[The_Squid]

If they're not pushing this on you, who are they pushing it on then? You said the government is pushing this.

"pushing" as in "selling" is what Peeves meant I think.

[Guest Peeves]

"pushing" as in "selling" is what Peeves meant I think.

The government is pushing gambling with casinos and national lotteries. 'Course we never had gamblin afore weeel not so as it could be taxed cousin.

Recent judgments on prostitution have supported it as openly legal in public places. Like it weren't already. Next thing it'll be taxed too. Like a lil' ol sadie masie under the table will now be gettin HST! 'stead of punishin with a whip it'll be punished by consarn taxes!

Moves to expand drug supervision sites suggest more open drug use is being condoned by government (recent moves for Toronto and Ottawa.)

Now that suggests to me that what once was frowned upon by our government is now being rationalized rightly or wrongly as acceptable societal practices, practices that my dear old granny would have filed under the rubric of sin. That's the Devi's playground...Next thing ya know the kids are in the pool halls and lookin at girly magazines and inta hard cider. Fer heaven's sake, we got to draw the line some where's don't we!

[dre]

Now that suggests to me that what once was frowned upon by our government is now being rationalized rightly or wrongly as acceptable societal practices

Not really. I think most people would be ok if prostitution and drugs just completely dissappeared. The problem is prohibition has not produced that result. We still have prostitution, but prositutes are forced to do it in the most dangerous way possible. We still have drugs but prohibitions mean the supply side is made up by criminals instead of government regulated tax paying businessmen.

When evaluating prohibition your opinion on whether prostitution or drugs are "right or wrong" has no relevance, because even IF you think they are wrong, prohibition does not deal with these problems it makes them worse.

[Guest Peeves]

Not really. I think most people would be ok if prostitution and drugs just completely dissappeared. The problem is prohibition has not produced that result. We still have prostitution, but prositutes are forced to do it in the most dangerous way possible. We still have drugs but prohibitions mean the supply side is made up by criminals instead of government regulated tax paying businessmen.

When evaluating prohibition your opinion on whether prostitution or drugs are "right or wrong" has no relevance, because even IF you think they are wrong, prohibition does not deal with these problems it makes them worse.

Now really, how can anyone disagree with that. Never mind.

[cybercoma]

The government is pushing gambling with casinos and national lotteries.

I don't agree with the government using gambling as a source of revenue, but they're certainly not "pushing it" on anyone. In any case, "gambling" was only one part of your argument.

Recent judgments on prostitution have supported it as openly legal in public places. Like it weren't already.

Citation?

The recent ruling in Ontario decriminalized brothels, not street prostitution.

Next thing it'll be taxed too. Like a lil' ol sadie masie under the table will now be gettin HST! 'stead of punishin with a whip it'll be punished by consarn taxes!

I don't agree with prostitution being used as a source of revenue by the government either. In fact, I think prostitutes ought to be tax exempt like churches. It's none of the government's business who someone chooses to sleep with and how much money they decide to take doing it. People's sex lives are none of the government's business and if money is the reason someone chooses to sleep with another person that likewise is none of the government's business. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to force someone to divulge the details of their sex life, so they can pay taxes on the money they make from it. It's one thing that can remain tax exempt, for personal privacy reasons.

Moves to expand drug supervision sites suggest more open drug use is being condoned by government (recent moves for Toronto and Ottawa.)

More open drug use? You mean by taking the drug use off the streets and putting it behind closed doors with medical professionals there to supervise and drug-recovery counsellors on site? That's not more open drug use. That's taking drug use off the streets and getting people the medical and psychological help that they need to get off drugs. The drug use isn't being 'condoned' it's being treated. That's tough for you to understand because people like you believe drug use should be punished, not treated. We've seen where that has gotten us: nowhere.

Now that suggests to me that what once was frowned upon by our government is now being rationalized rightly or wrongly as acceptable societal practices

The government hasn't rationalized anything as acceptable. In fact, it is the judiciary that has had to make these decisions for the health and well-being of Canadians. It has nothing to do with any sort of value judgement whatsoever. The courts don't make value judgements. You're the one putting a value judgement on it.

practices that my dear old granny would have filed under the rubric of in.

Your dear old granny has no right to tell me or anyone else how to live. She can keep her religious nonsense to herself and so can you.

Next thing ya know the kids are in the pool halls and lookin at girly magazines and inta hard cider. Fer heaven's sake, we got to draw the line some where's don't we!

You mean like they have been doing for generations?

We need to draw the line somewhere. You're right. We need to draw it at closed-mindedness that prevents people from being safe and getting the help that they need, even if they are "junkies" or "whores."

[eyeball]

When I was a young lad my mama tol me thet drugs, prostitutes and gamblin were bad, now the government is pushin all three.

Let me guess she also told you to trust the government.

Hush now baby, baby, dont you cry.

Mother's gonna make all your nightmares come true.

Mother's gonna put all her fears into you.

Mother's gonna keep you right here under her wing.

She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.

Mama will keep baby cozy and warm.

Ooooh baby ooooh baby oooooh baby,

Of course mama'll help to build the wall.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't agree with the government using gambling as a source of revenue, but they're certainly not "pushing it" on anyone. In any case, "gambling" was only one part of your argument.

Citation?

The recent ruling in Ontario decriminalized brothels, not street prostitution.

I don't agree with prostitution being used as a source of revenue by the government either. In fact, I think prostitutes ought to be tax exempt like churches. It's none of the government's business who someone chooses to sleep with and how much money they decide to take doing it. People's sex lives are none of the government's business and if money is the reason someone chooses to sleep with another person that likewise is none of the government's business. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to force someone to divulge the details of their sex life, so they can pay taxes on the money they make from it. It's one thing that can remain tax exempt, for personal privacy reasons.

More open drug use? You mean by taking the drug use off the streets and putting it behind closed doors with medical professionals there to supervise and drug-recovery counsellors on site? That's not more open drug use. That's taking drug use off the streets and getting people the medical and psychological help that they need to get off drugs. The drug use isn't being 'condoned' it's being treated. That's tough for you to understand because people like you believe drug use should be punished, not treated. We've seen where that has gotten us: nowhere.

The government hasn't rationalized anything as acceptable. In fact, it is the judiciary that has had to make these decisions for the health and well-being of Canadians. It has nothing to do with any sort of value judgement whatsoever. The courts don't make value judgements. You're the one putting a value judgement on it.

Your dear old granny has no right to tell me or anyone else how to live. She can keep her religious nonsense to herself and so can you.

You mean like they have been doing for generations?

We need to draw the line somewhere. You're right. We need to draw it at closed-mindedness that prevents people from being safe and getting the help that they need, even if they are "junkies" or "whores."

Sure was nice gettin your opinion an all, now don't you feel a whole lot better?

[Guest Peeves]

Let me guess she also told you to trust the government.

nop, she was ta first ta be shootin at them thar damn revenooors around our still.

[Savant]

More open drug use? You mean by taking the drug use off the streets and putting it behind closed doors with medical professionals there to supervise and drug-recovery counsellors on site? That's not more open drug use. That's taking drug use off the streets and getting people the medical and psychological help that they need to get off drugs. The drug use isn't being 'condoned' it's being treated. That's tough for you to understand because people like you believe drug use should be punished, not treated. We've seen where that has gotten us: nowhere.

I have to reply to this since it isn't fully accurate. Does Insite offer detox to those who ask? Sure. However you can get into detox through any one of a number of social service agencies.

The bigger issue with places like Insite is not just that they are drug use 'enablers', it's that there is no obligation for any user to enter detox while using their services. All the 'clinic' does is fascilitate drug use. They do nothing to prevent or discourage such drug use.

Some people seem to be missing the bigger picture here. These drug users deserve better than a government that does nothing to get them off drugs.

People need to ask themselves... If you had a child that was falling off a stool when trying to get to the cough syrup on the top shelf of the medicine cabinet, would your solution be to move the cough syrup down to the bottom shelf so the child wouldn't fall? Or would you tackle the issue of the child being addicted to cough syrup? I think most peolple would choose the latter. Society should be doing the same with addicts.

I could support a place like insite if it came with mandatory detox. That's not the reality though.

We owe drug addicts more than just a way for them to stay addicted to drugs. We owe these people the leadership and compassion that would see these addicts treated - whether they want it or not.

If a person is suicidal you don't give them a knife and a place to kill themselves. Why do the same with a drug addict?

They deserve better.

[Guest Manny]

I think most peolple would choose the latter. Society should be doing the same with addicts.

The drug user is the one who must choose the latter. They won't do it by force or by condemnation. Doing so only makes them go underground.

Starting to see what InSite is trying to do beyond just "facilitating" drug use?

[cybercoma]

What Manny said.

[Savant]

The drug user is the one who must choose the latter. They won't do it by force or by condemnation. Doing so only makes them go underground.

So do you suggest that suicidal people shouldn't be stopped - by force if necessary - from taking their own lives? How is this any different? Drug use is as much a death sentence as suicide is. Yet why is it that we have no qualms in 'committing' a person to an institution if they want to kill themselves? Isn't that using 'force'?

You can't play favourites here.

If drug addicts refuse to get treatment, then they should not be enabled to continue their destructive habit. It's no different than handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person. The state should never facilitate behaviour that is clearly self-destructive in nature.

[Army Guy]

Nobody's "pushin" you into anything peeves.

You still get to make your own choices about what's good and bad for yourself.

So does everybody else. Government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make those decisions for us, nor in trying to police our morality for us.

But when they do make bad choices we do expect the govenment to clean up the mess and fund it all right....

[BubberMiley]

But when they do make bad choices we do expect the govenment to clean up the mess and fund it all right....

You mean through police work and incarceration?

[Army Guy]

don't agree with the government using gambling as a source of revenue, but they're certainly not "pushing it" on anyone. In any case, "gambling" was only one part of your argument.

But we don't mind using tax payers funding to fund other peoples bad choices , you just don't like the government getting in on some of the other action via taxes...

More open drug use? You mean by taking the drug use off the streets and putting it behind closed doors with medical professionals there to supervise and drug-recovery counsellors on site? That's not more open drug use. That's taking drug use off the streets and getting people the medical and psychological help that they need to get off drugs. The drug use isn't being 'condoned' it's being treated. That's tough for you to understand because people like you believe drug use should be punished, not treated. We've seen where that has gotten us: nowhere.

Just a question how does this program work if there is nothing to entice addicts to quit...you say treated, how ? do you mean if the over dose they have medical assistance close by is that what treated is, or while they are there are they info, lectured upon what...or do they go behind closed doors to shoot up.

And i understand the medical assistance is volunteer work, could these medical assistance be used somewhere else in our over crowded Treatment rooms, just a thought.

I wonder if we could start up a program for drunk drivers, give them a place to get hammered and then drive there cars, we can have medical crews stand by incase of crashes ....shit maybe we could fund that one as well...i mean drinking is an addiction is it not....

people are all about smaller government , but not about taking charge for bad life decisions i don't follow the thought process.

Your dear old granny has no right to tell me or anyone else how to live. She can keep her religious nonsense to herself and so can you

your right , but thats a double edge sword as well, you should not expect us to fund your stupid mistakes...drugs is one of them personal choices ...like everything in life a common sense chioce...

We need to draw the line somewhere. You're right. We need to draw it at closed-mindedness that prevents people from being safe and getting the help that they need, even if they are "junkies" or "whores."

I have no problem with someone going into a clinic or hospital who wishes to clean up...if they leave before treatment is done or treatment fails then your done...you should have to pay for those services....not the tax payer...

[Army Guy]

You mean through police work and incarceration?

yes not funding drug dealers and crack houses...