Safe injection sites...

[Black Dog]

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.

Which is what?

I am saying that the only long term solution to the drug problem is to help addicts quit and that SIRs undermine that objective.

But that's not what the data shows. If SIRs act as an entry point for detox/addiction programs (as the data suggests), isn't that a good thing?

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.

That's not what SIRs do. If they did tell addicts they don't ned to quit, why would they offer counselling and referrals to detox and addiction services? The idea is to get people off drugs. SIRs can enable that, and they can also make sure people stay alive and healthy until they are ready and willing to quit.

[Figleaf]

C

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Charles Anthony]

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?

How about Narcotics Anonymous?

Oh! Sorry! Private initiative does not count. No government handouts nor public-servants job-creation salaries for the make-work do-gooders there!

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.

Actually, quite the contrary. Unless you believe money grows on trees, it is a perfect argument even for people who do believe in stealing people's money.

Here is the argument: ALL GOVERNMENTS HAVE LIMITS ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN SPEND. Simple.

Not all provinces can pay for every single health-care service. Currently choices are made as to what is covered and what is not. It is not a libertarian nor a statist issue. It is reality.

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

I disagree. The illegality restricts supply and thus, makes it more a lucrative and dangerous business.

Taking it a step further, these "safe injection sites" are defacto making drugs legal within their building.

[Riverwind]

But that's not what the data shows. If SIRs act as an entry point for detox/addiction programs (as the data suggests), isn't that a good thing?

Of course. The question is: "does their presence increase the number of people needing help in the first place?" Getting an additional 3 people/month into treatment does not mean much if an additional 5 people/month relapse or become street level addicts because they perceive that life to be more comfortable than confronting difficult personal issues.

No matter what opinion you have on whether drugs should be illegal you cannot deny that social sanction is the best way to limit anti-social behavior. The anti-drunk driving campaign in the last 20 years has been successfully largely because it because it became socially unacceptable to drink and drive. Tougher laws would have had no effect if the social sanctions did not exist. That is why I think SIRs are damaging because I think they undermine the social sanctions that inhibit drug abuse.

[Riverwind]

It certainly would. Firstly, the cost of drugs would go down as the 'illegality premium' disappeared, so addicts with limited incomes could better afford their habits.

Many drugs are already have a price comparable to alcohol per dose - the biggest difference is it is physically possible to consume more doses of drugs without becoming incapacitated. Are you suggesting that the gov't not only make drugs legal but refuse to put any price controls on them?

[Wilber]

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.

My grandson was approached in a schoolyard last year. Anyone who would try to sell drugs to a seven year old should be put up against a wall and shot.

[Black Dog]

Actually, quite the contrary. Unless you believe money grows on trees, it is a perfect argument even for people who do believe in stealing people's money.

Here is the argument: ALL GOVERNMENTS HAVE LIMITS ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN SPEND. Simple.

Not all provinces can pay for every single health-care service. Currently choices are made as to what is covered and what is not. It is not a libertarian nor a statist issue. It is reality.

It's a ridiculous argument even for a non-kook to make for the very simple reason that its fiercely impractical for governmnet to pass out a list of items for people to select what items they want their tax dollars to pay for. So while you are correct in sayin that there's only so much to go around, saying "why can't x pay for y" is an argument that applies across the board.

Of course. The question is: "does their presence increase the number of people needing help in the first place?" Getting an additional 3 people/month into treatment does not mean much if an additional 5 people/month relapse or become street level addicts because they perceive that life to be more comfortable than confronting difficult personal issues.

I think that's totally bogus. People become street level addicts because their addiction takes over their lives, not because they think it looks like easy.

No matter what opinion you have on whether drugs should be illegal you cannot deny that social sanction is the best way to limit anti-social behavior. The anti-drunk driving campaign in the last 20 years has been successfully largely because it because it became socially unacceptable to drink and drive. Tougher laws would have had no effect if the social sanctions did not exist. That is why I think SIRs are damaging because I think they undermine the social sanctions that inhibit drug abuse.

You seem to think people are astonishingly receptive to such messages. Certainly the evidence here and in other juridstictions does not support your theory.

There is no evidence that consumption rooms encourage increased drug use or initiate new

users. There is little evidence that by providing better conditions for drug consumption they

perpetuate drug use in clients who would otherwise discontinue consuming drugs such as

heroin or cocaine, nor that they undermine treatment goals.

When managed in consultation with local authorities and police, they do not increase public

order problems by increasing local drug scenes or attracting drug users and dealers from other

areas. If consultation and cooperation between key actors does not take place, then there can

be a risk of a ‘pull effect’ and consumption rooms run the risk of being blamed for aggravating

local problems of public order including drug dealing..

European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction

[non legitimus carborundum]

There is no good time to die. Better to be like me, and stay a young and beautiful sexy senior citizen.

[Figleaf]

U

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[jdobbin]

Adam Radwanski's take on InSite.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...31-10f3135f87b1

The National Post was very liberal today.

[Riverwind]

Price controls? Certainly not. Normal sales tax, I suppose would be inevitable and possibly "sin-taxes" to pay for elevated healthcare costs, like on cigs or booze.

My point is the gov't would likely make the price of drugs as expensive as it is today to discourage abuse which means you will see no change in the amount of crime committed to get drugs because the cost will not go down.

[Riverwind]

There is little evidence that by providing better conditions for drug consumption they perpetuate drug use in clients who would otherwise discontinue consuming drugs such as heroin or cocaine, nor that they undermine treatment goals.

In the long run I will judge these centers on their ability to get people to clean up their lives. However, I don't measure success by the number of referrals to treatment (anyone can agree to go to treatment - many don't last a day) - I would measure it by the number of former clients who are now clean and sober. If these centers can demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the number of street level addicts who are able to clean up and stay clean then it will be probably worth risking any secondary effects. However, my concern is they are not even trying to gather the data that I am interested in - they are more interested in the easy data that means nothing such as the number of referrals. It is quire possible that the center may be able to convince more people to go to treatment but that these people are much more likely to relapse after treatment because a relapse is less 'harmful'.

[KrustyKidd]

I want a place where the governement allows me to get loaded and drive my 70 foot semi. In fact, I demand it.

[Black Dog]

In the long run I will judge these centers on their ability to get people to clean up their lives. However, I don't measure success by the number of referrals to treatment (anyone can agree to go to treatment - many don't last a day) - I would measure it by the number of former clients who are now clean and sober. If these centers can demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the number of street level addicts who are able to clean up and stay clean then it will be probably worth risking any secondary effects. However, my concern is they are not even trying to gather the data that I am interested in - they are more interested in the easy data that means nothing such as the number of referrals. It is quire possible that the center may be able to convince more people to go to treatment but that these people are much more likely to relapse after treatment because a relapse is less 'harmful'.

Again: you seem to have expectations about SIRs that they aren't meant deliver. They aren't detox facilities. The aren't there to get people clean and keep them clean, but to address immediate problems of health and public order. All SIRs do WRT detox/rehab is act as a gateway to detox and other services. So if you're measuring the success of such a centre based on how many clients get clean and stay clean, they will fail because you're using the wrong measure.

[Hicksey]

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.

That's what I think. I am sure any benefits from not having to prosecute offenders would be far outwieghed by the cost of prosecuting the crimes the addicts commit to feed their habit.

[yam]

Apparently, if they were legal they would be much cheaper to buy. Which would decrease crime that is done to meet the high costs of them being illegal.

[Chrissy1979]

That's what I think. I am sure any benefits from not having to prosecute offenders would be far outwieghed by the cost of prosecuting the crimes the addicts commit to feed their habit.

You're operating on the bogus assumption that legalization would mean more consumption. What if it meant less? Consumption went down when alcohol prohibition ended. Why isn't solvent abuse rampant when it's available at every convenience store? People barely knew what marijuana was when it was still legal.

People who are happy with the status quo are either profiting off the sale of drugs or just enjoy criminalizing people to satisfy their own (immoral) sense of moral superiority. To hide this, they come up with ridiculous arguments like yours.

[Black Dog]

That's what I think. I am sure any benefits from not having to prosecute offenders would be far outwieghed by the cost of prosecuting the crimes the addicts commit to feed their habit.

I think if police weren't spending their time on traffiking or minor possession offences, they could devote more time to property crime or what have you.

[betsy]

That's what I think. I am sure any benefits from not having to prosecute offenders would be far outwieghed by the cost of prosecuting the crimes the addicts commit to feed their habit.

I think if police weren't spending their time on traffiking or minor possession offences, they could devote more time to property crime or what have you.

maybe not much on minor possesion....but definitely big-time on the trafficking. Children are becoming the targets of pushers. Lesser addicts would definitely mean lesser property crimes....not to mention other crimes.

[Zyric]

Please forgive the newbie for some thread necromancing; I stumbled upon this thread while researching for a school debate so my finding the discussion is rather late.

I felt it would merit signing up and posting to point out something that seems to have been overlooked by many repliers in this thread, or at least not explicitly said: Supervise Injection Sites are not meant to take out addiction in the first place. SIS are part of one component of the four pillars strategy, the rest being prevention, treatment, enforcement. Following that vein, judgement of Insite's worth would be determined on effectivity in harm reduction and nothing else.

In this manner, I feel SIS are worth keeping but does not mean that our community can wash our hands of the downtown eastside and our addicted population. Personally, I think much more should be done on the prevention stance, education to be exact. I'm a grade 10 student and technically have never completed any drug abuse education programme. I was supposed to take D.A.R.E. in elementary school (grade 5, if I recall correctly) but I found it too juvenile and uneducative, even at that age. When I spoke out about it in class, it was decided that I would be kicked out for all D.A.R.E. sessions.

[Charles Anthony]

Supervise Injection Sites are not meant to take out addiction in the first place. SIS are part of one component of the four pillars strategy, the rest being prevention, treatment, enforcement.

That is one strategy indeed.

Some people believe that anything that continues drug use -- SIS are one of them -- will continue addiction. They would suggest that starting with prevention or treatment or enforcement would be a wiser effort.

Following that vein, judgement of Insite's worth would be determined on effectivity in harm reduction and nothing else.

What is harm reduction? It sounds vague.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that it is a euphemism for continued-addiction-our-strategy-did-not-work such that the Insite program can never really seem to fail.