Safe injection sites...

[Charles Anthony]

Can you even begin to understand the consequences of doing that? You think we have problems rehabilitating people now -- just wait.

Why should the problems be different or more??

The costs of allowing drug use far outweigh the benefits.

So.... where do the SafeInjectionSites fit into your equation???

My friends 14 year old daughter is now living with the consequence of ectasy use. Apparently the high came with group sex with an adult and herpes.

Unfortunately, the power of the law could not help her nor prevent those consequences.

[Black Dog]

True but, InSite:

1. does nothing to control the increasing use of illegal drugs in Vancouver, up 16% in last reported year.

2. does nothing to control the increasing crime committed to obtain the drugs.

3. does nothing to control the trafficking of illegal drugs in Vancouver.

4. The spread of drug related diseases is is still on the rise in Vancouver.

Insite has been subject to rigorous, independent third party research and evaluation by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, recognized as one of the world’s leading research organizations. The Centre’s research has been published in peer-reviewed journals including the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and The Lancet.

Results include:

Insite is leading to increased uptake into detoxification programs and addiction treatment. (New England Journal of Medicine)

Insite has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, rates of arrest for drug trafficking, assaults and robbery were similar after the facility’s opening, and rates of vehicle break-ins/theft declined significantly.

(Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy)

Insite has reduced the number of people injecting in public and the amount of injection-related litter in the downtown eastside. (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

Insite is attracting the highest-risk users – those more likely to be vulnerable to HIV infection and overdose, and who were contributing to problems of public drug use and unsafe syringe disposal. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine)

Insite has reduced overall rates of needle sharing in the community, and among those who used the supervised injection site for some, most or all of their injections, 70% were less likely to report syringe sharing. (The Lancet)

Nearly one-third of Insite users received information relating to safer injecting practices. Those who received help injecting from fellow injection drug users on the streets were more than twice as likely to have received safer injecting education at Insite. (The International Journal of Drug Policy)

Insite is not increasing rates of relapse among former drug users, nor is it a negative influence on those seeking to stop drug use. (British Medical Journal)

link

Ottawa did something similar recently in handling out crack pipe kits to keep crackheads from sharing their crack pipes and thus spreading disease. It worked, sort of, in limiting the spread of disease. It also noticeably increased the number of people on crack.

Cite? I'm sure what you meant to say was that it increased the number of people smoking crack (versus injecting it) which was kinda the point. But I'd like to see soem evidence that the number of crack users increased as a result of the program.

Safe Injection Site <-- an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Please explain why if we were to fund such a place that it should a safe injection site and not a rehab facility?

Why not fix the problem instead of exasterbating it?

By publicly funding drug use (aiding drug addicts amounts to the same thing), does that amount to government endorsement of drug use? Is that a good message to send?

Here's a question: would you rather have a heroin addict shooting up in an SIR or in your backyard?

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.

Yeah, because countries like China or Iran, with incredibly harsh punishments for drug offences, are totally drug free, right?

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.

Uh...because you assume there's a finite supply of drug users? Riverwind has argued that SIRs are a bad idea because they don't target the "suburban junkies" that make up the bulk of societies' addicts. If that's true, then your plan won't work either. You'd clean up the street users, but leave many untouched.

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.

It's a site in which addicts inject drugs safely (at least compared to doing it in an alley with a dirty needle). Where's the hypocricy?

It's interesting how many people who oppose SIRs seem to regard them as a panacea, and reject them for failing to live up to their unrealistic expectations. Also, the idea that drug treatment is a zero-sum game (ie. we can have SIRs or rehab but not both) seems to be a popular one.

[M.Dancer]

Here's a question: would you rather have a heroin addict shooting up in an SIR or in your backyard?

Well, at least in my back yard I can thow bricks at them.....but honestly, I think they should be arrested for possesion and whatever funding is used to give them a safe injection site be diverted to rehab....perferably in labrador or baffin island.

[Charles Anthony]

Here's a question: would you rather have a heroin addict shooting up in an SIR or in your backyard?

That is not a fair question because there is more than those two choices.

Also, shooting up in a "safe-injection site" is actually "in my backyard" if I am the one paying for it.

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.

Uh...because you assume there's a finite supply of drug users?

Can the "safe-injection sites" deal with an infinite demand?

Ultimately, no matter what we do (except for decriminalization and privatization of health-care) we will always face limits.

Riverwind has argued that SIRs are a bad idea because they don't target the "suburban junkies" that make up the bulk of societies' addicts.

Why can his arguments not be applied to all junkies?

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.

It's a site in which addicts inject drugs safely (at least compared to doing it in an alley with a dirty needle). Where's the hypocricy?

The hypocrisy is in the fact that the activity is deemed "illegal" and we pay people to enforce that illegality.

[Black Dog]

Can the "safe-injection sites" deal with an infinite demand?

Are they supposed to?

Ultimately, no matter what we do (except for decriminalization and privatization of health-care) we will always face limits.

Why can his arguments not be applied to all junkies?

Which argument are you referring to? I was talking about his argument against SIRs on the basis of the fact that they only serve one particular group of addicts.

[Riverwind]

Why can his arguments not be applied to all junkies?

Which argument are you referring to? I was talking about his argument against SIRs on the basis of the fact that they only serve one particular group of addicts.

To clarify - I have argued that the only way to get any addict to clean up is it install a fear of the consequences of their addiction. Many addicts have cleaned up long before they reach the street because they realized that a brutal death on the streets is the only thing they could look forward to if they kept using. Safe injection sites and other 'harm reduction' measures that sanitize street level drug use take away this incentitive and will lead to more people using drugs longer.

In fact, the idea of collecting a welfare check and then shooting up in a clean gov't run hospital may sound down right attractive to an addict looking for any excuse to keep using (especially compared to being nagged constantly by someone that cares enough about them to bother nagging).

[Black Dog]

To clarify - I have argued that the only way to get any addict to clean up is it install a fear of the consequences of their addiction. Many addicts have cleaned up long before they reach the street because they realized that a brutal death on the streets is the only thing they could look forward to if they kept using. Safe injection sites and other 'harm reduction' measures that sanitize street level drug use take away this incentitive and will led to more people using drugs longer.

So they figure it out (assuming they don't catch HIV or Hep C, get knifed or overdoes first). Then what? Where do they go? Who do they talk to? SIRs are not government sponsored shooting galleries, but one part of a comprehensie strategy to deal with addiction. Again: it's not a zero-sum game and, frankly, youre "fear of god" meets "just say no" aproach has been the de facto status quo for a long time. It's pretty safe to say it's been a failure.

[watching&waiting]

There just is not any quick fixes when it comes to drug use (pardon the pun), but the one thing you can count on is the more sanitised you make the use the more users that will be drawn to it. I did drugs when I was a teenager and yes we ran and hid way out in the woods to smoke our pot or do our LSD etc. No on wanted to be caught and no one wanted the stigma of being a druggie. The times have changed and the stigma arguement just does not exist today. Kids openly barge about their drug use and hold those who are stoned out space cadets, are looked at as being cool. This has now made drug use many times what it was. The proof that the more you easy its use the more its use will increase.

If you see people doing drugs in your back yard or property, turn a hose on them, or get a large dog and set him on them. Call the police and report it. Get it on film or pictuures if you can. That way the police have evidence to prove what and where they were. People need to take their own property rights back and help clean up their neighbourhoods. Start a watch group and patrol tha parks after dark and the empty school grounds and report any and all suspicious activity. This whole safe injection site stuff comes only when the people have given up and surrender their neighbourhoods to the addicts. I must admit that I will never given in to addicts but then again I am not living in the middle of a city. I get ashamed many times when I read about things going on in the city and people just watched and did nothing. To me they are as bad as the offenders. Society has certain standards, and we need to up hold those standards not lower them to suit the addicts. With winter soon coming it will be once again where the addicts start using building stair wells and garages to shoot their drugs and sleep off some affects. Building managers need to inspect their properties after 11pm and make sure that they put out anyone they find.

Safe injection sites are nothing more then a waste of time and money. There is no way that I would support any of them anywhere, even if far away from me and my family. Police need to spend more time going after the dealers and street level distributors. I sickens me when I can go to certain areas of the city of Ottawa and see dealing going on right out in the open. It makes me wonder just how hard it would be for police to put a stop to this, if not permanently then temporarily.

[betsy]

Here's a question: would you rather have a heroin addict shooting up in an SIR or in your backyard?

How many will actually use the SIRs?

What's the guarantee that those who use the SIRs do not shoot up anywhere else too?

Will a druggie desperate for a fix bother to go in?

Just think....if women risk unwanted pregnancies by going ahead without contraceptives, what more with an addict who's dying for a fix?

SIRs does not necessarily mean they will not end up in my backyard! So why waste money on it?

[Black Dog]

SIRs does not necessarily mean they will not end up in my backyard! So why waste money on it?

So? I presented a false dilemna to make a point. But I think your response shows a lot about how little those who opposse SIRs actually know about them. You seem to be operating on the basis that if SIRs can't completely eliminate the drug problem, then they are useless. Othes seem to think they'll actually make the drug problem worse (how is unclear; something about "sending a message", though if it were that easy, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because all of those government-sponsored anti-drug campaigns and laws would have sent the message to not use drugs ages ago).

Again: an SIR is not a panacea. It's not meant to be. But if it can make a difference, what's the problem?

[betsy]

SIRs are not government sponsored shooting galleries, but one part of a comprehensie strategy to deal with addiction.

But we are footing the bill!

Why don't those ardent supporters of these sites personally finance them ALL THE WAY THROUGH?l

[betsy]

You seem to be operating on the basis that if SIRs can't ompletely eliminate the drug problem, then they are useless.

It is almost impossible to eliminate the whole drug problem. There are far more effective ways to spend the money than just throwing it on SIRs.

[Black Dog]

But we are footing the bill!

Why don't those ardent supporters of these sites personally finance them ALL THE WAY THROUGH?l

Unless you're a libertarian who doesn't believe in taxes or government at all, that's not an argument worth making. If you accept the role of government, you're going to have to accept that your tax dollars might end up funding something you don't agree with, whether it's SIRs for you or religious education for me.

It is almost impossible to eliminate the whole drug problem. There are far more effective ways to spend the money than just throwing it on SIRs.

Such as? Do you even know how much the Vancouver site costs?

[betsy]

To clarify - I have argued that the only way to get any addict to clean up is it install a fear of the consequences of their addiction. Many addicts have cleaned up long before they reach the street because they realized that a brutal death on the streets is the only thing they could look forward to if they kept using. Safe injection sites and other 'harm reduction' measures that sanitize street level drug use take away this incentitive and will led to more people using drugs longer.

Again: it's not a zero-sum game and, frankly, youre "fear of god" meets "just say no" aproach has been the de facto status quo for a long time. It's pretty safe to say it's been a failure.

I would think the decay of values and morality has far more to do why the "fear of god" meets "just say no" had not been effective.

I had been lectured thoroughly by my parents about the horrors of drugs...vividly explained! The consequences of drugs really scared me that no one....not even my boyfriend...could pressure me to smoke pot! He had to apologise for me whenever we went to parties where other youths were passing the joint.

It worked on me....I'm sure that approach had worked on others too!

[betsy]

Such as? Do you even know how much the Vancouver site costs?

Do we even need to be told to have an idea?

Besides, the cost they tell you now is not the real cost! You can be sure of that.

Ala-gun registry! Deja vu...all over again...drat, we never learn after all these redundancies!

[betsy]

But we are footing the bill!

Why don't those ardent supporters of these sites personally finance them ALL THE WAY THROUGH?l

Unless you're a libertarian who doesn't believe in taxes or government at all, that's not an argument worth making. If you accept the role of government, you're going to have to accept that your tax dollars might end up funding something you don't agree with, whether it's SIRs for you or religious education for me.

So, they are government-sponsored shooting galleries!

[Black Dog]

I would think the decay of values and morality has far more to do why the "fear of god" meets "just say no" had not been effective.

...

It worked on me....I'm sure that approach had worked on others too!

Uh huh. And what about those it doesn't work on who end up hooked on drugs?

Also: there's nothing about a comprehenisve drug strategy that excludes prevention education.

So, they are government-sponsored shooting galleries!

Yeah: if you ignore all the other services offered there. The Insite program has published peer-reviewed clinical results (including the New England Journal of Medicine) indicating an increased uptake of addicts into detoxification programs and addiction treatment. So, clearly, there's more to it than you let on.

Do we even need to be told to have an idea?

If you are going to argue that it's a waste of money, you should probably know how much money is being wasted,

[Wilber]

The Thais have got it right. Hang the dealers.

[Black Dog]

The Thais have got it right. Hang the dealers.

And as anyone will tell you, there's no drug problem in Thailand.

[betsy]

Already, they're talking of homeless addicts who do not want to use shelters simply because they are not allowed to bring in their drugs. An interviewed druggie said that being on the streets could only have them ending up doing crime. It doesn't take too much imagination to know what will be next.

Somebody will scream: these addicts need to be off the streets! It will reduce crime! We need to give them a safe house to freely practice their illegal activities and a place to live in!

Btw, what happens if a druggy happens to die in one of these sites?

"COMPENSATION"-time, folks!

[betsy]

The Thais have got it right. Hang the dealers.

And as anyone will tell you, there's no drug problem in Thailand.

I would bet it's far, far less than we have here.

[Riverwind]

SIRs are not government sponsored shooting galleries, but one part of a comprehensie strategy to deal with addiction.

The issue is not what they are - it is what they are perceived to be by someone who has already developed a moderate drug problem.

frankly, youre "fear of god" meets "just say no" aproach has been the de facto status quo for a long time. It's pretty safe to say it's been a failure.

You should not mix up my arguments with the moralistic 'its a crime' arguments that others are making. I am saying that the only long term solution to the drug problem is to help addicts quit and that SIRs undermine that objective. I agree that more criminal enforcement is not the answer either.

You must also remember that abstinence is the _only_ effective solution to an addiction problem. The 'just say no' program tried to tell non-addicts that drugs are inherently wrong and that smoking a joint or two would turn them into a crackhead. I also agree that moralistic approach is not helpful. However, telling someone that is already an addict that they don't need to quit is simply irresponsible.

[Riverwind]

And as anyone will tell you, there's no drug problem in Thailand.

I would bet it's far, far less than we have here.

How would you measure such things? In Canada were are twisted out of shape because one neighborhood in one large city is a crime infested cesspool - a description that probably describes most of the slums in Bangkok. Does that mean Thailands problems with drugs are less? If they appear to be it is probably because Thailand has so many more pressing issues to worry about.

[Figleaf]

K

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Riverwind]

I doubt that. The remote possibility of a small increase in some healthcare/rehabilitation costs is more than off-set by the savings in police, court, and prison costs.

Making drugs legal will do nothing to stop the crimes committed by addicts to get money for their addiction.