Vancouver Safe Injection Site --- A 10 Year Success Story

[cybercoma]

Work camps in the arctic would do the same thing...

I'm enjoying your idiotic hyperbole tonight. Keep it up.

[G Huxley]

Who says they're not realistic solutions? The injection site isn't a solution at all. It simply perpetuates the illegal and dangerous activities. Using the word "safe" to describe injecting some of this stuff into your body is quite a misnomer.

Criminalization of substances does a good enough job on its own of perpetuating the cycle of addiction. Criminalization has proven ineffective and decriminalization in Portugal has proved effetive. Criminalization has created a permanent epidemic. Insite is merely helping to ameliorate the damages of it.

[G Huxley]

Work camps in the arctic would do the same thing...

Yes send them all to Siberia Chairman, that'll solve the problem.

[Argus]

It's a solution to a specific problem. Are you expecting a panacea?

What was the problem? Them dying of overdoses? I don't consider that so much a problem as inevitable, and not something which causes any societal difficulties.

It's a 100% accurate since it's not referring to the activity itself, but the circumstances in which it occurs.

The acitivity is a sentence of a short, miserable and unproductive life where all you do is cause difficulties for others.

[Argus]

Criminalization of substances does a good enough job on its own of perpetuating the cycle of addiction. Criminalization has proven ineffective and decriminalization in Portugal has proved effetive. Criminalization has created a permanent epidemic. Insite is merely helping to ameliorate the damages of it.

What causes the substance abuse is weak minds. I'm all for mandatory addiction treatment followed by, if failed, life in a workcamp far from society. I'm also for the death penalty for dealers and smugglers, or, at a minimum, life in the work camps with their customers.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

What causes the substance abuse is weak minds.

I'm all for mandatory addiction treatment followed by, if failed, life in a workcamp far from society. I'm also for the death penalty for dealers and smugglers, or, at a minimum, life in the work camps with their customers.

"Weak minds" cause ignorance too.

[GostHacked]

Who says they're not realistic solutions? The injection site isn't a solution at all. It simply perpetuates the illegal and dangerous activities. Using the word "safe" to describe injecting some of this stuff into your body is quite a misnomer.

Looks like you are not understanding what is meant by 'safe'.

Off the streets - safe.

Clean needles - safe.

Medical attention if needed - safe.

Communities not inundated with junkies - safe.

Needles not being found littering the parks and streets - safe.

Less risk of overdosing and contracting diseases - safe

Less risk of druggies harassing other people. - safe.

Yes the drugs are dangerous, but will you allow them an avenue out or simple toss their asses out into the streets where they do not have a chance of trying to kick this habit?

[jacee]

Looks like you are not understanding what is meant by 'safe'.

Off the streets - safe.

Clean needles - safe.

Medical attention if needed - safe.

Communities not inundated with junkies - safe.

Needles not being found littering the parks and streets - safe.

Less risk of overdosing and contracting diseases - safe

Less risk of druggies harassing other people. - safe.

Yes the drugs are dangerous, but will you allow them an avenue out or simple toss their asses out into the streets where they do not have a chance of trying to kick this habit?

And where they are a bigger risk/danger to the public.

Safe injection sites provide harm reduction to both addicts and society.

[GostHacked]

And where they are a bigger risk/danger to the public.

Safe injection sites provide harm reduction to both addicts and society.

As pessimistic I am about things, I actually think the site is a worthy cause.

[cybercoma]

Yes the drugs are dangerous, but will you allow them an avenue out or simple toss their asses out into the streets where they do not have a chance of trying to kick this habit?

His solution is to murder them all. He wants to see them dead.

[carepov]

What was the problem? Them dying of overdoses? I don't consider that so much a problem as inevitable, and not something which causes any societal difficulties.

There are several problems, one of them is cost. Since the injection sites have been in place, simply add up the savings in:

-Ambulance and police trips to deal with addicts

-Emergency hospital visits by addicts

-Treatment of HIV/aids

Studies that I have read about harm reduction programs like safe-injection sites conclude that they provide a good return on investment (as well as other benefits).

[ReeferMadness]

Racism? You pretty much lost all credibility by trotting that out.

Do a little research on the subject. Drugs associated with racial minorities regularly are demonized to a greater extent and draw harsher penalties. The history of drug demonization is rife with racial bigotry. Here's an example:

Mainstream recreational marijuana use began in the United States at the turn of the last century, courtesy of Mexican immigrants coming across the border to look for work in the American southwest. But white Americans weren’t feeling very welcoming and were looking for excuses for their racist hatred of Mexicans, so rumors began that pot gave these Mexicans superhuman strength and turned them into crazed murderers. Despite the fact that neither was true, these stereotypes would last for decades. Starting in 1914, local laws began popping up criminalizing marijuana – often not so much as a way of controlling pot usage as it was a way of controlling Mexicans. One Texas state senator said on the floor of the senate, “All Mexicans are crazy and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.” One Montana state legislator said, “Give one of those Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona.” From 1914 to 1937, twenty-seven states passed anti-pot laws.

Link

[Argus]

There are several problems, one of them is cost. Since the injection sites have been in place, simply add up the savings in:

-Ambulance and police trips to deal with addicts

-Emergency hospital visits by addicts

-Treatment of HIV/aids

Studies that I have read about harm reduction programs like safe-injection sites conclude that they provide a good return on investment (as well as other benefits).

Did they include the continuing welfare payments which would not be made if they'd died? The reduction in petty crime they are no longer able to commit? The improvement of the local community and thus improving house values?

[Argus]

His solution is to murder them all. He wants to see them dead.

I want them all cured. I want to take away their right to destroy themselves and everyone around them by forcing them into addiction treatment programs, and then, if that doesn't work putting them somewhere they have no access to drugs and can make some constructive contribution to life.

[guyser]

Did they include the continuing welfare payments which would not be made if they'd died?

For the most part, homeless drug addicts do not receive welfare. They may get a small stipdend, but are denied the housing portion of same.

The reduction in petty crime they are no longer able to commit? The improvement of the local community and thus improving house values?

Probably on the first part, absolutely on the second part.

[carepov]

Did they include the continuing welfare payments which would not be made if they'd died? The reduction in petty crime they are no longer able to commit? The improvement of the local community and thus improving house values?

I don't know. But there are other major cost savings...

I want them all cured.

Then you should support the safe injection sites:

"A large body of peer-reviewed research, published in leading medical journals, has documented various benefits of the program including reductions in syringe sharing and fatal overdoses, and increased uptake of addiction treatment," wrote doctors Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner, Even Wood and Marie Zlotorzynska in the commentary

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Insite+anniversary+Vancouver+supervised+injection+site+celebrates+years/8939148/story.html#ixzz2g1GGFN2m

[segnosaur]

When it comes to opponents of In Site, their callousness is only exceeded by their ignorance.

Did it ever occur to you (or anyone else) that the problem is not the ignorance of those opposing the Insite operation, but the faulty arguments put forward by its supporters? I can point to plenty of incorrect arguments, both from the original article and from the article in the opening post. For example:

From G Huxley...

After a decade of being open, there still hasn't been one single fatal overdose at the Vancouver Safe Injection Site.

Here's the thing... without context, we don't know how useful that particular fact is.

Given the number of users who use InSite, how many would we have expected to die? If we would have expected a dozen deaths every year (given the number of users of InSite, number of times injecting, etc.) then yes, its probably a good thing. But if overdose deaths were relatively rare to begin with, then pointing out "no overdose deaths" isn't that impressive, and if that's the case, the local and/or provincial government would be more successful at saving lives if they (for example) improved emergency rooms, bought more MRI machines, etc.

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode, where Springfield has brought in a "bear patrol" to prevent bear attacks...

Homer: Not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working like a        charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work.Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?        [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

carepov...

There are several problems, one of them is cost. Since the injection sites have been in place, simply add up the savings in:

...

-Treatment of HIV/aids

From cybercoma...

The plan is to make sure they don't spread HIV...

Reducing the spread of HIV is a useful goal... it saves lives (both for addicts, AND potentially for non-addicts) and potentially reduces health care costs.

Here's the problem though... there is at least some evidence that harm-reduction strategies might actually be counter-productive (studies were looking at needle exchange programs, but the same might apply to something like InSite).

It may sound rather... backwards (after all, if you're reducing needle-sharing you're reducing the chance of HIV). The problem is, even though addicts may use something like InSite or needle exchange programs sometimes, they will not use them all the time. What was found was that in some cases, needle exchange programs were giving the opportunity addicts to meet that might never have done so before. So, you end up creating a concentrated population whom regularly engage in risky behavior, not all of which will be done under the watchful eye of the InSite staff.

Again, I want to point out that at this point in time the evidence is.... mixed. There are plenty of studies that show reduced HIV transmission...but they are far from universal, and there are some studies (real scientific studies, done by real universities. By guys in lab coats!) that show the opposite effect.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.full.pdf

From G Huxley....

HIV transmission via needles have also decreased significantly in the area.

This is another one of these "facts" that needs proper context.

Has HIV decreased in the area? Quite possibly. But to know whether that's a useful statistic we'd have to compare its situation at areas with similar demographics. If HIV transmission has decreased among InSite users, but has remained stable or increased among non-InSite users then InSite might be contributing positively; if the rate is identical to those other populations then you can't really make the claim that its preventing HIV infections.

A lot of things have been happening over the past few decades... the population as a whole has gotten older, thousands of immigrants have arrived (who may be from cultures less interested in drug use), new anti-virals have been developed. Before trumpeting a decrease in HIV as a result of InSite, we need to rule out other factors which might be contributing.

From GostHacked...

Less risk of druggies harassing other people. - safe.

From the article referenced by the opening post...

The research found that there had been...no increase in crime in the neighbourhood surrounding InSite

I have no problem believing that the area around the InSite location is safer. But here's the problem....

When InSite was opened up, the police assigned an addition 40 officers to patrol the area. I rather suspect that any neighborhood will see a decrease in crime if you assign dozens of more police to watch out.

Again, I want to stress... I am not against the InSite site. I'm saying that the claims of "success" are often based on questionable arguments, and simply labeling all opponents as "ignorant" is not constructive.

[ReeferMadness]

Did it ever occur to you (or anyone else) that the problem is not the ignorance of those opposing the Insite operation, but the faulty arguments put forward by its supporters? I can point to plenty of incorrect arguments, both from the original article and from the article in the opening post. For example:

Did it ever occur to you that when you have peer-reviewed science on one side of an argument and a bunch of holier-than-thou knuckle-dragging conservatives on the other, it isn't really a debate anymore? You have to go out of your way and look really hard to find evidence that Insite is bad. I noticed that your link had nothing to do with Insite, only dealt with one facet of needle exchanges and was inconclusive in its findings. Hardly damning stuff.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada overwhelmingly found that the benefits of Insite were so great that it made the Federal Government keep the facility open.

Insite links.

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_injection_overdose_1667_20274.shtml

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/222713.php

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/30/thomas-kerr-vancouvers-insite-clinic-has-been-a-resounding-success/

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/media-centre/an-overview-of-insite---10-years-later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite

[Scotty]

Did it ever occur to you that when you have peer-reviewed science on one side of an argument

Ideologues reviewing the findings of similarly minded ideologues.

[jacee]

Ideologues reviewing the findings of similarly minded ideologues.

Peer review is very competitive and exacting.

Politicians 'reviews' are better?

[G Huxley]

Did they include the continuing welfare payments which would not be made if they'd died? The reduction in petty crime they are no longer able to commit? The improvement of the local community and thus improving house values?

What a knob perfectly happy to let people die if it improves your house value.

[AlienB]

Just think how much safer and economical it would be if they sold the drugs there and applied profit to the cost of operations..

That is regulating the amount and quality of the drug, putting that into the cost of health insurance or medical treatment and rehab.

It would reduce street sales and promote movement toward "cleaning up" the dirty side of drugs.

Edited September 30, 2013 by AlienB

[jacee]

I want them all cured. I want to take away their right to destroy themselves and everyone around them by forcing them into addiction treatment programs, and then, if that doesn't work putting them somewhere they have no access to drugs ...

There is no such place.

[dre]

These kind of programs help but they are a half measure.

Criminalization needs to be replaced with treatment across the board for all drugs.

Our current system basically guarantees that drugs cause the biggest problem possible. Its not an accident either, its an industry. Take all the money used for prohibition and spend it on treatment.

[G Huxley]

New Report shows that the war and drugs is a complete failure. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/war-on-drugs-is-failing-report-concludes-illegal-narcotics-now-cheaper-more-potent-1.1477609