Guest Peeves Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) So, another proposed program to 'help' junkies. First it was give them clean needles so they don't pass aids-HIV or hep on. Then it was give them a safe place and needles so they don't get robbed. Then it was give them free drugs so they don't share bad junk and needles and get robbed. Then it was give them a bit of medical support to ensure they get help, provide doctors--- nurses. So it went on the la la coast. Now they're commin atcha in T.O. and Ottawa Who pay? We'uns pay. They snort we pay through the nose... :angry: Sure it might well reduce hiv- and hep but it's use is free choice don't we have to pay for our addictions? I don't get free chocolate or free donuts, or anything. I have to pay through the nose. I don't get free coffee or viagra I don't get free prostrate exams or liquor Nothin I get is free. Except my soapbox here.... Excerpt. A four-year study suggests both Ottawa and Toronto need supervised drug injection sites because it would reduce both harm to drug users and the public.View the entire drug injection site report for Ottawa and Toronto. The feasibility study, by researchers at the University of Toronto and staff at St. Michael's Hospital, was requested by the City of Toronto in 2008 and later expanded to include Ottawa. The results released this morning advise Ottawa introduce two "safe consumption" sites and Toronto to open three sites. The research was led by Dr. Ahmed Bayoumi of St. Michael’s Hospital and Dr. Carol Strike of the University of Toronto. P.O.V.: Would you want a supervised drug injection site in your city? Have your say here. They did not recommend any specific locations but did suggest more than one centralized location, which is what..... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/04/11/ottawa-toronto-safe-injection-site-study-released.html Edited April 11, 2012 by Peeves Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Boges 476 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Come on now. It's better to enable addicts than let them be idiots and get AIDS and treat that instead. Safe injections sites advocates are standing in the way of Darwin if you ask me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Manny 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Yeah when your kid steps on a dirty needle in the park playground, that's when you'll see "the light". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dre 57 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Legalisation is the only approach thats ever worked anywhere. The cost of managing drug addiction, and its impact on society would go way down if we ended prohibition. So would HIV, drug related crime, and drug use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Peeves Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Yeah when your kid steps on a dirty needle in the park playground, that's when you'll see "the light". Those 'lights' are hallucinations and psychedelic and I stopped seeing them about the time Timmy coined, "turn on, tune in, drop out." Time Junkies drained their gene pool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Boges 476 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Legalisation is the only approach thats ever worked anywhere. The cost of managing drug addiction, and its impact on society would go way down if we ended prohibition. So would HIV, drug related crime, and drug use. Works so well with Legal drugs like Oxycotin right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlight Graham 455 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Then it was give them free drugs so they don't share bad junk and needles and get robbed. Insite in Vancouver doesn't give out free drugs. You have to obtain it out on the street or wherever and bring it into the facility. ------ "Junkies" are people too. They're also junkies and homeless for a reason, and not because they're "losers" if anyone understand homelessness or addictions at all. These people are in some of the most dire straights in all of our society, so I don't mind giving them a bit of help to get turned around, since these facilities protect their health but more importantly provide access to counseling & mental health services etc. A lot of these people have mental health issues of some kind and are self-medicating, and certainly need help. If research supports the site then I'll go with the research. From the Insite website: Although there have been 1418 overdoses at InSite between 2004 and 2010, staff were able to successfully intervene each time. There has never been a fatality at InSite since opening. In fact, research shows that since InSite opened, overdoses in the vicinity of the site have decreased by 35% - compared to a 9% decrease in the city overall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dre 57 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Works so well with Legal drugs like Oxycotin right? Much much better than prohibition, yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogOnPorch 2,894 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Works so well with Legal drugs like Oxycotin right? Hands off my Percodan! What a drag it is getting old"Kids are different today," I hear ev'ry mother say Mother needs something today to calm her down And though she's not really ill There's a little yellow pill She goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helper And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Boges 476 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Much much better than prohibition, yes. So what, Heroine at the LCBO? That's a world you want to live in? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlight Graham 455 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Legalisation is the only approach thats ever worked anywhere. The cost of managing drug addiction, and its impact on society would go way down if we ended prohibition. So would HIV, drug related crime, and drug use. Doesn't get rid of the problem of people actually doing the drugs though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cybercoma 29 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Some of you need to actually learn about the things you're criticizing before you post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlight Graham 455 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Some of you need to actually learn about the things you're criticizing before you post. It's just "low-effort thinking" . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hardner 662 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Don't these sites reduce other health costs ? It seems to me that they would. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eyeball 1,315 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Don't these sites reduce other health costs ? It seems to me that they would. It seems they also cause an increase some people's blood pressure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Canada 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I don't agree with paying for someone else's mistakes constantly. Why must the taxpayer constantly bail these people out who make wrong life choices? The addict makes the choice to shoot crap into their arms and the public is on the hook for millions. Doesn't make any sense at all. So now the bleeding hearts want them to have a nice warm place to use after they have victimized someone to get the money to paty for it or is the taxpayer going to start paying for their junk too? For those in favor of these shooting galleries, would you support having them built next door to your house, with your children? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Squid 69 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 We can pay for harm reduction or we can pay for the harm; the latter being much more expensive. http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/ From the right-wing Fraser Institute: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=13426 The war on drugs is lost and prohibition has been a complete failure. These are the conclusions of Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Manny 0 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 We can pay for harm reduction or we can pay for the harm; the latter being much more expensive. We've been throwing money at the problem for years, and paying a price in lives and got little to show for it. It's such a difficult, costly situation and there is no simple remedy. So now instead of using violence lets take that same money and use it to "manage" the problem. Maybe at least we can mitigate the harm. It's already a foregone conclusion, at least to those of us who actually use can our brains with little effort. Conservatives, like me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlight Graham 455 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I don't agree with paying for someone else's mistakes constantly. Why must the taxpayer constantly bail these people out who make wrong life choices? The addict makes the choice to shoot crap into their arms and the public is on the hook for millions. Doesn't make any sense at all. What about people with lung-cancer from smoking or diabetes from poor lifestyles, or a dumbass who falls while mountain-climbing? If they, say, can't afford to pay for medicine/surgury etc., what then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewTeddy 0 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Drugs make you die, this results in less druggies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Squid 69 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Not true. Druggies linger for many years and make many trips to the hospital and get many diseases that don't kill them right away but cost a lot to treat. And please don't attribute something so stupid to Darwin. He was way too intelligent to ever say such a thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jacee 393 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) So how's that Darwin drug reduction plan working so far? Edited April 12, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BubberMiley 296 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 And please don't attribute something so stupid to Darwin. He was way too intelligent to ever say such a thing. He could also use punctuation properly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shady 1,497 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm actually a proponent of paying for their drugs. However, we should only pay for it once. Preferably in a one time lethal dose. Problem solved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Squid 69 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm actually a proponent of paying for their drugs. However, we should only pay for it once. Preferably in a one time lethal dose. Problem solved. What an idiotic sentiment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.