Labelled a Success: Vancouver Mayor Campbell's

[maplesyrup]

Study labels B.C. injection site a success

After only one year of operation, the safe injection site has been labelled a success. Kudos to Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell for his persistence.

One of Canada's most loved and progressive mayors, hopefully Mayor Campbell will run again in the next mayority campaign in the Fall of 2005.

Whatever he choses to do, both he and Councillor/ Deputy Mayor Jim Green, have certainly left their mark, in a very constructive way, and shaken up things in staid old Vancouver City Hall.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

Now, if there was only a way to replace some of that 'safe' heroin and cocaine with some cyanide, Campbell would indeed be making Vancouver better.

[playfullfellow]

If by allowing people to inject crap into their system and destroy their lives even further is being progressive, then I prefer the old staid way. This sort of stuff has been tried and failed in Switzerland and Holland. It just leads to more problems for these poor souls who are hooked. Obciously you have never had a close friend or family member destroy their lives with these drugs or you would not be so positive about it's use in certain areas.

[Black Dog]

Now, if there was only a way to replace some of that 'safe' heroin and cocaine with some cyanide, Campbell would indeed be making Vancouver better.

dear thelonius

Tell me: who died and made you god? It must be nice to be so smug as to advocate the murder of people you find undesirable. What next? Mandatory sterilization of certian minorities?

:angry:

Your attitude towards fellow human beings is appalling. Give your head a shake.

If by allowing people to inject crap into their system and destroy their lives even further is being progressive, then I prefer the old staid way. This sort of stuff has been tried and failed in Switzerland and Holland. It just leads to more problems for these poor souls who are hooked.

Obviously you're not maying attention. Safe injections site work. Dozens of European cities have them and opilots are operational in Australia as well as Vancouver.

SIS's are eeffective in reducing public disorder problems associated with drug use, as well as giving addicts information about drugs and health care, treatment referrals, and access to medical staff.

Obciously you have never had a close friend or family member destroy their lives with these drugs or you would not be so positive about it's use in certain areas.

That's prety fallacious reasoning. Advocating a new approach a problem to replace an ineffective status quo is not an endorsment of the problem.

[Newfie Canadian]

I haven't read all the numbers and can't speak intelligently about the success or failure about the program, but I honestly can't see how providing people the tools and environment to do something illegal would be a really good thing.

[Hugo]

I honestly can't see how providing people the tools and environment to do something illegal would be a really good thing.

There's no moral imperative behind the illegality of drug use. It is a circular argument: drug use is illegal because it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it's illegal.

I don't think this is an appropriate use of public funds, however, it seems fair to say that if we hadn't made drug use a criminal activity we wouldn't have these drug abuse problems in the first place. During Prohibition, alcoholism and alcohol-related deaths were much greater than before and after. This safe injection site is a band-aid solution to a problem that government created. If drugs are legalised, these sites won't be one-hundredth as necessary as they are now.

The problem associated with drug abuse, especially the "social costs", are primarily about them being illegal. If drugs were not illegal, their quality would not be so dubious as to actually include toxic substances in many cases. The astronomical cost of drugs is because they are so illegal. The actions of the government to arrest drug dealers and raid grow-houses basically amount to causing a massive raise in the marginal value of a drug. If you wonder why Shaq O'Neill gets paid more than a teacher, it's because his marginal value is that much higher. If a teacher is tylenol, Shaq is heroin.

This astronomical cost drives users to crime in order to fuel their addictions. Because using the drugs themselves is a crime, users don't feel safe using them in many places and have difficulty getting the equipment necessary. This leads to needle-sharing and other dangerous practices. The involvement of the drugs trade with other serious criminal activities like extortion, robbery, and organised crime is because the drugs trade is illegal. When something is pushed to a black market, it joins other items on the black market. When alcohol was prohibitioned, it became the privy of the Mafia. When it was legalised, the Mafia lost control of it very quickly.

This isn't to say that drug use is great. It's not. But to say that you have a right to decide what is best for other people - to tell them what to do - is an argument for slavery, as I've said before.

[Newfie Canadian]

Are you saying Hugo, that drug use, drug abuse and the nastiness that goes with it, would ease off if drug use were legal?

By nastiness I mean other illegal activites perpetrated to help feed the habit and the illegal activites undertaken because people may have taken leave of their senses because of the drugs.

[Hugo]

Are you saying Hugo, that drug use, drug abuse and the nastiness that goes with it, would ease off if drug use were legal?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I give you the brief American Prohibition as an historical example.

[Newfie Canadian]

I don't drink or do drugs so I can't speak intelligently about them.

However, isn't the addictive properties of drugs more potent than booze? And if so, would the destructiveness of drugs be more pronounced and severe than booze?

I can see what you're saying though. Before kids turn the legal age to go to bars (19 here), they are crazy to go to them. After they turn 19, they aren't so keen on going there.

But I still have a hard time believing that if you legalize drugs the problems will go away, even on a small scale.

[Hugo]

I don't drink or do drugs so I can't speak intelligently about them.

However, isn't the addictive properties of drugs more potent than booze? And if so, would the destructiveness of drugs be more pronounced and severe than booze?

So what? Putting a gun to your head is even more destructive than hard drugs - do you want to make that illegal again too?

But I still have a hard time believing that if you legalize drugs the problems will go away, even on a small scale.

Then read up on prohibition.

[playfullfellow]

Hugo, I agree with you that both drugs and alchohol can be very destructive in peoples lives. I have seen both tear apart families and even kill people eventually. The main difference between the two is the rate at which it takes to destroy a life. Drugs usually can see a person hit rock bottom within a year or two. Alchohol takes about twice as long. This is just from watching people in my life. Some of the people who had their lives destroyed by drugs were not street drugs but perscription drugs. These drugs are legalized and fairly easy to get but just as destructive as street drugs. Perhaps not as dangerous because there does not tend to be poisons mixed in to make processing cheaper.

As for the prohibition stance, it really doesn't fly. Look at Muslim countries. There are a lot of them that do not allow alchohol but yet they don't seem to have a raging alchoholism rate. The reason prohibition didn't work is that you took an acceptable part of life, drinking alchohol and made it illegal. People rebeled because it was a case of the minority ruling the majority.

[Hugo]

To be honest, Playfullfellow, I wouldn't care if legalising drugs made the problem worse. My conscience won't allow me to enslave another human being.

Look at it this way. If you tell another human he may not do drugs - which affects only him - you are saying that you should have control over his body, which means he is your slave.

Look at Muslim countries. There are a lot of them that do not allow alchohol but yet they don't seem to have a raging alchoholism rate.

They seem to be taking out their problems through other means. Maybe if they had more liquour they might not want to go out slitting throats and shooting clouds all the time?

However, I've heard from several Arab friends that the drinking laws in Muslim countries aren't really observed anyway. Apparently, they make a good excuse if the police want to shake you down, but there's a lot of hard drinkers in Muslim countries.

These drugs are legalized and fairly easy to get but just as destructive as street drugs.

And yet, society failed to destroy itself. If we could get back the billions of dollars being wasted each year on the War on Drugs, maybe we could fund some help for addicts.

[Newfie Canadian]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Hugo.

[Hugo]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Hugo.

Then why did you come here?

[Newfie Canadian]

I didn't come here to change anyone's minds.

However, upon further reflection and taking your advice to read up on Prohibition, I concede that you may indeed have a point.

However, I doubt we'll see the day anytime soon where you can go into a corner store and pick up heroin. Without using stats and figures, I just think that if the hardcore drugs were decriminalized, access to those drugs would obviously be easier, getting more and more people hooked. This in turn would impact the healthcare system for example.

I just think that drugs are more deadly and more addictive than alcohol, making it more dangerous.

[Cartman]

Are they just injection sites or do they offer resources for quitting? I am always astounded at how many people get addicted to these drugs. When I lived in Van, it was pretty shocking to me and they needed to do something.

PFF is right about prescription drugs. They are remarkably easy to get and many are very destructive (liver). Since they are legal, people seem to think they are alright. I once read a book about the common side effects of various prescription drugs and I was really amazed. Trust me, read up before you take any drug.

[Newfie Canadian]

http://www.vch.ca/sis/

The SIS, officially known as Insite, is a clean, safe environment where users can inject their own drugs under the supervision of clinical staff. Nurses and counselors provide on-site access and referral to addictions treatment services, primary health care, and mental health providers, as well as first aid and wound care.

[Cartman]

Thanx NC.

[Black Dog]

I just think that if the hardcore drugs were decriminalized, access to those drugs would obviously be easier, getting more and more people hooked.

Time was heroin and other opitates were commonly used and did not have anywhere near the damaging effects they have today. It was only after drug use became a criminal, rather than a medical, matter that many of the social problems associated with drug abuse become widespread. As Hugo pointe dout, many of thos eproblems are side effects of the illegality of drugs and not of their use.

We need to get back to the old approach of regarding addiction as an illness rather than some character flaw. I think SIS's are a good step in that direction.

[Newfie Canadian]

The more I read about the SIS, the less I dislike it.

I was unaware of the fact that there are counselling and addiction treatment services available there.