Safe injection sites...

[geoffrey]

Let's create an addict reserve, like an Indian reserve, send them there out in the woods thousands of kilometers from the nearest dealer, make them all go cold turkey. They'll all be clean pretty quick, no drugs, no addiction. That simple.

--

jdobbin, what you don't get is that these folks are going to die of their addictions anyways. Providing them with resources along the way just costs us money. Having them die right away saves society cash, keeps the filth off the streets and destroys the drug trade by killing all the clientele.

Having a rehab or death choice for the addicts actually solves alot of problems in society pretty quick. There would no longer be illegal drug trade, or addicts. It's great.

[jdobbin]

jdobbin, what you don't get is that these folks are going to die of their addictions anyways. Providing them with resources along the way just costs us money. Having them die right away saves society cash, keeps the filth off the streets and destroys the drug trade by killing all the clientele.

Having a rehab or death choice for the addicts actually solves alot of problems in society pretty quick. There would no longer be illegal drug trade, or addicts. It's great.

And you think internment camps are the way to go?

[geoffrey]

jdobbin, what you don't get is that these folks are going to die of their addictions anyways. Providing them with resources along the way just costs us money. Having them die right away saves society cash, keeps the filth off the streets and destroys the drug trade by killing all the clientele.

Having a rehab or death choice for the addicts actually solves alot of problems in society pretty quick. There would no longer be illegal drug trade, or addicts. It's great.

And you think internment camps are the way to go?

Sure, gets them out of the streets, off drugs... they won't be supplying dealers and organized crime with money. Sounds like a great idea, why not?

[jdobbin]

Sure, gets them out of the streets, off drugs... they won't be supplying dealers and organized crime with money. Sounds like a great idea, why not?

Why waste time when you can go for a drive now and shoot someone on the street for being an addict?

[geoffrey]

Sure, gets them out of the streets, off drugs... they won't be supplying dealers and organized crime with money. Sounds like a great idea, why not?

Why waste time when you can go for a drive now and shoot someone on the street for being an addict?

Tell me what's wrong with my ideas and stop with the ridiculous attacks. Your not contributing to the discussion. What is seriously wrong with my idea, lock them up away from drugs and society. They will be clean if they have no drugs, and dealers won't have anyone to sell to.

[jdobbin]

Tell me what's wrong with my ideas and stop with the ridiculous attacks. Your not contributing to the discussion. What is seriously wrong with my idea, lock them up away from drugs and society. They will be clean if they have no drugs, and dealers won't have anyone to sell to.

Internment means that addicts will eventually be released, no? Some will quit to be sure. Others will be back at it.

And why just drug addicts? Why not alcoholics? Gamblers? Prescription pill users?

[Riverwind]

Why waste time when you can go for a drive now and shoot someone on the street for being an addict?

No one has said that. Addicts are engaged in self-destructive behavoir that _will_ lead to their early death unless they change their ways. In other words, the addict has already made the choice to commit suicide - the only question is how many other lives they will destroy while they kill themselves. It makes a lot of sense for society to step in and say that we respect your right as an individual to kill yourself if that is what you choose, however, we must insist that you either get it over with now or change your ways (and BTW - here is a treatment program that is available to help you change your ways).

[jdobbin]

No one has said that. Addicts are engaged in self-destructive behavoir that _will_ lead to their early death unless they change their ways. In other words, the addict has already made the choice to commit suicide - the only question is how many other lives they will destroy while they kill themselves. It makes a lot of sense for society to step in and say that we respect your right as individual to kill yourself if that is what you choose, however, we must insist that you either get it over with now or change your ways (and BTW - here is a treatment program that is available to help you change your ways).

Addiction has been around a long, long time. The only proposals I have seen here are let them die.

But they don't just die. Addicts pose dangers far beyond themselves.

I will be interested to hear what the policy will eventually be that the Tories come up with. End of 2007 seems a long time to wait.

[Riverwind]

And why just drug addicts? Why not alcoholics? Gamblers? Prescription pill users?

Gamblers are really in a different category because the gov't is the drug dealer. Casinos get almost 25% of their revenues from 10% of their customers. Most Casinos would not be profitable if they did not have a steady stream of people willing to destroy their lives because of an addiction. For that reason, shutting down all Casinos and video lottery terminals would accomplish more than giving ultimatums to gambling addicts.

[geoffrey]

And why just drug addicts? Why not alcoholics? Gamblers? Prescription pill users?

Gamblers are really in a different category because the gov't is the drug dealer. Casinos get almost 25% of their revenues from 10% of their customers. Most Casinos would not be profitable if they did not have a steady stream of people willing to destroy their lives because of an addiction. For that reason, shutting down all Casinos and video lottery terminals would accomplish more than giving ultimatums to gambling addicts.

I've strongly supported the elimination of VLT's for a long time, and have mentioned it on this board before. The government has maintained a core clientele for their drug through gambling, especially through VLT's which are purposely designed by the government to be addicting and therefore life destroying. Gambling income is really dirty money, and I don't know why people are morally ok with having their TV in their hospital room or the new computers in their kids school paid for by money that was taken away from families that can't generally afford it.

It's disgusting to see how much of our society is funded by broken lives through government encouraged gambling activities.

[jdobbin]

Gamblers are really in a different category because the gov't is the drug dealer. Casinos get almost 25% of their revenues from 10% of their customers. Most Casinos would not be profitable if they did not have a steady stream of people willing to destroy their lives because of an addiction. For that reason, shutting down all Casinos and video lottery terminals would accomplish more than giving ultimatums to gambling addicts.

Any Conservatives in Canada supporting that policy?

[jdobbin]

It's disgusting to see how much of our society is funded by broken lives through government encouraged gambling activities.

Perhaps we will eventually see a province such as Alberta eliminate gambling both in casinos and lotteries. They don't need the money.

[Hicksey]

Gamblers are really in a different category because the gov't is the drug dealer. Casinos get almost 25% of their revenues from 10% of their customers. Most Casinos would not be profitable if they did not have a steady stream of people willing to destroy their lives because of an addiction. For that reason, shutting down all Casinos and video lottery terminals would accomplish more than giving ultimatums to gambling addicts.

Any Conservatives in Canada supporting that policy?

Not this one. Alcohol and cigarettes are indulgences just the same, they are not banned. Why this one? Those that I have listed are proven to be addictive when abused as is gambling.

So lets ban cigarettes, alcohol and gambling and see if that solves anything.

Why is the answer to ban everything?

Kinda takes the free out of freedom don't you think?

[yam]

Would it not be better to eliminate those things that drive people to drugs and dependency in the first place?

As the majority are concerned with how their salaries will be effected, surely elimination of its cause would eventually be cost effective - not to mention humane even if it is not your concern.

[fellowtraveller]

I would rather have the existing ones get sick - they are bound to die soon anyway.

Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways:

1) One less drug addicted person supporting a criminal sub-culture.

2) A high death rate will help convince people with less serious problems to clean up sooner and cause less damage to themselves and others.

Many people do not think about the importance of 2). People don't become addicts overnight - it happens gradually over time. Often there are many opportunities to help a person before they become a street level addict. Anything we do to make street level drug use less harmful actually makes it harder to reach someone who has not reached that level yet.

You two had better hope that your family is one of the few that is not touched by drug addiction. With those Neanderthal attitudes, you will be obliged to eat your shameful words.

The safe injection site keeps people alive long enough to attempt to recover.

Keep it open, it costs nothing compared to the cost of treating AIDS/HepC etc.

[Canuck E Stan]

The safe injection site keeps people alive long enough to attempt to recover.

And what are the figures for how many have recovered?

Or have attempted to recover?

And comparing it to those who don't use the site.

[jdobbin]

And what are the figures for how many have recovered?

Or have attempted to recover?

And comparing it to those who don't use the site.

"Statistics compiled by the clinic over a two-year period ending March 31 show there was an average of 607 visits a day to the clinic, and that 453 addicts overdosed at the clinic - but with no deaths because of the trained staff. There were also 4,083 counselling referrals during the two-year period, including about 1,600 referrals to addiction counselling."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03092006/3/cana...-operating.html

[Canuck E Stan]

"Statistics compiled by the clinic over a two-year period ending March 31 show there was an average of 607 visits a day to the clinic, and that 453 addicts overdosed at the clinic - but with no deaths because of the trained staff. There were also 4,083 counselling referrals during the two-year period, including about 1,600 referrals to addiction counselling."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03092006/3/cana...-operating.html

Your quote doesn't answer the my questions

I'll ask the same question that Clements asks in this article:

"Do safe injection sites contribute to lowering drug use and fighting addiction? " Clement said.

[jdobbin]

Your quote doesn't answer the my questions

I'll ask the same question that Clements asks in this article:

"Do safe injection sites contribute to lowering drug use and fighting addiction? " Clement said.

He's the health minister. You think he would know. And if he doesn't, he should have an alternative solution.

It is obvious that he doesn't because he has renewed the program till the end of the year.

[Canuck E Stan]

It is obvious that he doesn't because he has renewed the program till the end of the year.

Makes sense to me, so how can anyone make a decision of it's value until the facts are presented in full?

Better a delay to the program rather than canning it without all the information.

[Charles Anthony]

Without beating around the bush: I believe that the "safe-injection sites" should be completely shut down and I believe that illicit drugs should all be decriminalized. Drug abuse should be handled exactly like alcohol, smoking, gambling, sex and whatever other prudish addictions or SINGLE-PERSON behaviors that most people (but not all) believe are harmful. Get the State out of people's private lives (even if they are making deadly mistakes) and let them fend for themselves or be at the mercy of charitable organizations. Period.

In general, my stance is intellectually easy. To be fair to the drug injectors, I have the same attitude towards all of health care. We would not be having this stupid discussion if health care was 100% privatized. The source of this dilemma comes from our self-imposed nebulous "social contract" responsibility of "universal" healthcare.

By extension, I treat drug abuse in the same way as I treat people who get injured in contact sports or people who do not brush their teeth or cigarette smokers who get emphysema.

Behind all of the controversy, I honestly believe that we are up against a make-work drug-industry bureacracy. There are twisted do-gooders who make a living off of "helping" drug addicts and there are police officers who make a living off of enforcing our stupid drug laws.

Now for some fun:

First they need to change the name to something more honest. There will never be anything safe about injecting illegal drugs bought on the street.

I agree. It should be labelled: "State Sponsored Pimping and Pushing Facility" or "State Sponsored Aiding and Abetting of Criminal Behavior" instead. Calling it a "Safe Injection Site" is the height of hypocrisy.

The main purpose of the site is to try and keep addicts alive long enough that they can seek help in controlling their addiction. I support trying to help keep them alive, and also helping to slow the spread of disease.

So do I. However, I object to forcing everybody else to pay for them.

Others prefer to dismiss any current or potential worth our fellow humans have or may have. Not me. Addicts are people in trouble, not some piece of crap stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

They can't help themselves out of their mess when they are dead.

Your comments are not fair. I do not dismiss addicts nor judge their "worth" at all.

What YOU fail to understand is the concept of LIMITS to everybody else responsibility to their fellow man. This "safe-injection site" FORCES everybody else (whether they agree with it or not) to be responsible for addicts. I have a question for you: how responsible should non-addicts be? Maybe we are already doing enough without the "safe-injection sites" compared to other forms of charities and needy people.

I would rather have the existing ones get sick - they are bound to die soon anyway.

Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways:

1) One less drug addicted person supporting a criminal sub-culture.

2) A high death rate will help convince people with less serious problems to clean up sooner and cause less damage to themselves and others.

Many people do not think about the importance of 2). People don't become addicts overnight - it happens gradually over time. Often there are many opportunities to help a person before they become a street level addict. Anything we do to make street level drug use less harmful actually makes it harder to reach someone who has not reached that level yet.

As heartless as the above attitude may seem on the surface, I agree with it completely.

On a relative basis, when there are poor people who have little to eat and nowhere to live, I have NO SYMPATHY for a person who can afford the luxury of illicit drugs.

Allowing drug addicts to kill themselves benefits society in a couple ways:

Why not hasten that by executing addicts on sight?

Your comment is stupid: it does not further the argument on either side and it is insulting to people who believe in respecting eachother's freedom (inlcuding the freedom to do risky behavior).

Apparently according to one poster here, some sites have been providing the drugs too.

You may be getting things confused with methadone clinics.

Do they raid the "evidence room" and confiscated drugs of every precinct?

I always wonder what happens to street drugs that get confiscated by the police. The cynic in me thinks of dirty cops.

It all comes down giving addicts the right incentives to make the right choices.

Exactly. As cold-hearted as it may seem, in a "free" country that means the incentives are more effective if they do not include sugar coatings. I have heard drug addicts talk on radio condemn unequivocally these injection sites for this exact reason.

Would it not be better to eliminate those things that drive people to drugs and dependency in the first place?

Why??? Every single drug user may a completely different reason. How could a bureaucrat possibly know what is going on in a drug user's head???

As the majority are concerned with how their salaries will be effected, surely elimination of its cause would eventually be cost effective - not to mention humane even if it is not your concern.

I would like to see details of one example of how to do that.

You two had better hope that your family is one of the few that is not touched by drug addiction. With those Neanderthal attitudes, you will be obliged to eat your shameful words.

They are not Neanderthanl attitudes, they are limits.

Since you mention family, that is where the responsibility with drug help should start: with family.

For people who do not have family, it should be with friends.

For people who do not have friends, it should be with charitable organizations.

For people who live away from any charitable organizations, it will have to come from personal responsibility and cold-hard reality.

For lone lumber jacks who fall from trees doing their honest job, it will also come from personal responsibility (normal safety precautions) and cold-hard reality. Drug addicts should be treated the same.

If we MUST come to the aid of people, why should we come to the aid of people who WILLINGLY self-destruct???

"Statistics compiled by the clinic over a two-year period ending March 31 show there was an average of 607 visits a day to the clinic, and that 453 addicts overdosed at the clinic - but with no deaths because of the trained staff. There were also 4,083 counselling referrals during the two-year period, including about 1,600 referrals to addiction counselling."

This is disgusting. A "counselling referral" is supposed to mean something??? Have you ever heard of reading between the lines??? If the best thing they can provide as evidence is a "counselling referral" it is excessively feeble-minded to make the association with true help. Saying you made a "referral" is fool's way of hiding the fact that nothing was accomplished. By the way, if only 1,600 of them were for addiction, what were all of the others for???

Talk about sugar coating inaction!!!! Sheesh!

Paying people to help addicts shoot up. Paying people to maintain drug addictions. What has our warped do-gooder "social contract" mentality got us into???

I can not make this loud and clear enough: EVERY SINGLE PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THESE "SAFE INJECTION S(H)ITES" SHOULD BE ASHAMED. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

I have said this about other issues:

If there were three buckets: good, neutral and evil, "safe drug injection" helpers go in the same bucket as murderers. Drug rehab specialists would go in a different bucket.

As a point of order: this thread should either be in "Immoral & Irreligious Issues" or "Provincial Policits" instead. It is not a federal jurisdiction.

[jdobbin]

Your comment is stupid: it does not further the argument on either side and it is insulting to people who believe in respecting eachother's freedom (inlcuding the freedom to do risky behavior).

This is disgusting. A "counselling referral" is supposed to mean something??? Have you ever heard of reading between the lines??? If the best thing they can provide as evidence is a "counselling referral" it is excessively feeble-minded to make the association with true help. Saying you made a "referral" is fool's way of hiding the fact that nothing was accomplished. By the way, if only 1,600 of them were for addiction, what were all of the others for???

Talk about sugar coating inaction!!!! Sheesh!

Paying people to help addicts shoot up. Paying people to maintain drug addictions. What has our warped do-gooder "social contract" mentality got us into???

I can not make this loud and clear enough: EVERY SINGLE PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THESE "SAFE INJECTION S(H)ITES" SHOULD BE ASHAMED. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

I have said this about other issues:

If there were three buckets: good, neutral and evil, "safe drug injection" helpers go in the same bucket as murderers. Drug rehab specialists would go in a different bucket.

As a point of order: this thread should either be in "Immoral & Irreligious Issues" or "Provincial Policits" instead. It is not a federal jurisdiction.

I suggested killing addicts because death was being talked about as a solution. The only reason it was dismissed was because it is messy.

The quoted figure was in response to someone's question. I didn't read between the lines because I wasn't arguing the merits of the statistics.

And the reason it is in federal politics is because the federal government was the deciding factor on the clinic because they are the federal regulator on drugs. That isn't a provincial responsibility.

As far as decriminalization of drugs, it is in Harper's hands now. I don't think it will happen ever.

[daddyhominum]

You two had better hope that your family is one of the few that is not touched by drug addiction. With those Neanderthal attitudes, you will be obliged to eat your shameful words.

The safe injection site keeps people alive long enough to attempt to recover.

Keep it open, it costs nothing compared to the cost of treating AIDS/HepC etc.

I appreciate your comments. I worked contracts at a drug rehab. I especially recall a father of a young family intentionally overdosing after completing three cycles of rehab and going back to drugs. The harm to him was minimal but his family's loss will never end.

These things are true:

Drugs are readily available in jail.

Banning something increases the price and the profit to be made.

I have never met someone who remained addicted to drugs by choice.

The cost of preventative medical support for addicts is cheaper then the alternative.

Most addicts live relatively long lives and tend to die of diseases spread by needles and poor nutrition.

There is no curative addiction treatment in the world: like alcoholism addiction can only be managed.

Every addict is someone's child.

Death only harms the living

"Recreational drug" does not exist for an addict.

Many, posibly most, drug addicts have a diagnosed mental disorder.

Drug recovery programs teach clients: Dead addicts are poor learners

As the research demonstrates that the Insite operation helps society manage addicts and helps addicts manage addiction, there is no choice but to continue and expand the program.

[Riverwind]

I have never met someone who remained addicted to drugs by choice.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a vicious circle - the more you put into your system the more you crave it. Long time addicts have compulsion to use that overpowers their rational mind and they will do the craziest things to get a fix. They have about as much choice when it comes using as a wolf has a choice when it kills a deer. The only way to break this vicious circle is to _stop_ using. Once an addict is detoxified and the physical effect of the drugs are gone then the addict does have a choice. Understanding this distinction is the key to understanding what addiction is.

I have heard drug addicts talk on radio condemn unequivocally these injection sites for this exact reason.

Exactly, every recovering addict that I know agrees that enabling drug use is the wrong way to go. To all those people who try lecture me on lack of empathy: have you ever sat down and had a conversation with a recovering addict or alcoholic and asked them what would have helped them get sober sooner? They answers would likely surprise you: in many cases they will say they wish the people around them had been less willing to tolerate the excesses of their addiction.

Force an addict into a corner - offer them support and forgiveness if they clean up - promise them hell on earth if they refuse (and follow through). You will be surprised how effective that approach can be. That is how interventions work. Unfortunately, interventions don't work so well for people who live in a world where drug abuse is normal and accepted.

[Charles Anthony]

Force an addict into a corner - offer them support and forgiveness if they clean up - promise them hell on earth if they refuse (and follow through).

Hear, hear! That is a true definition of compassion at work. However, it requires courage and strength on the part of the intervenor.

You will be surprised how effective that approach can be. That is how interventions work. Unfortunately, interventions don't work so well for people who live in a world where drug abuse is normal and accepted.

It probably works faster but requires less do-gooder bureaucrats who make a living by pretending to "help" drug addicts.