Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Giving junk to Junkies


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. :)

You mean like the professional athletes who get addicted to oxy's?

Or would you only target poor and homeless addicts?

And why ask the nanny-state to do your dirty work for you!

Do your own crime.

And do your own time!

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We better save some of that money for the inevitable lawsuit that will be coming from a family member of one of the junkies after they od and die as a result of the government assisting and helping them pump this crap into their veins.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

The health risk and medical support is 100 fold what these other examples would require. Someone who smokes or habitually crosses the street on red lights may be making poor choices, but government and medical support for people in this category is nowhere near what a drug addict will undoubtedly require. The comparison is not even close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We better save some of that money for the invertible lawsuit that will be coming from a family member of one of the junkies after they od and die as a result of the government assisting and helping them pump this crap into their veins.

The number of deaths from OD would probably go way down. But there would likely still be some, people die all the time. In terms of liability it's about the same as when someone go es to the hospital for a procedure. You get warned about the risks, you sign a waiver that you understand that they are helping you.

On the other hand, very few lawsuits arise from people who get killed in prison, who were put in there for only using drugs. Does that appeal to your sense of saving government costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of deaths from OD would probably go way down. But there would likely still be some, people die all the time. In terms of liability it's about the same as when someone go es to the hospital for a procedure. You get warned about the risks, you sign a waiver that you understand that they are helping you.

On the other hand, very few lawsuits arise from people who get killed in prison, who were put in there for only using drugs. Does that appeal to your sense of saving government costs?

Assisting these people with their poison to help them kill themselves does not seem nearly as practical as helping treat their addiction. It may be cheaper in the long run to just let them kill themselves, but actual treatment for the disease seems more practical and ethical to me.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Assisting these people with their poison to help them kill themselves does not seem nearly as practical as helping treat their addiction. It may be cheaper in the long run to just let them kill themselves, but actual treatment for the disease seems more practical and ethical to me.

That sounds fine. It should be the most important goal of any such program. As I understand it right now, many addicts are afraid to come forward out of fear they will be incarcerated. The people who are setting up these programs such as "Insite" intend it to be a step towards treatment. First step is to find and identify the junkies. Helping them stop involves getting them to first come into the centre. Many of them don't have the will to quit, or don't see a means of doing it. It's a hard thing to do to persuade someone, much like tobacco smokers. But the harm reduction part is an important first step.

Would be interesting to know the statistics from places like this, to see how many people eventually reach out for treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peeves

That sounds fine. It should be the most important goal of any such program. As I understand it right now, many addicts are afraid to come forward out of fear they will be incarcerated. The people who are setting up these programs such as "Insite" intend it to be a step towards treatment. First step is to find and identify the junkies. Helping them stop involves getting them to first come into the centre. Many of them don't have the will to quit, or don't see a means of doing it. It's a hard thing to do to persuade someone, much like tobacco smokers. But the harm reduction part is an important first step.

Would be interesting to know the statistics from places like this, to see how many people eventually reach out for treatment.

Stats from Vancouver seem to suggest that supervised injection sites haven't reduced users nor aids cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds fine. It should be the most important goal of any such program. As I understand it right now, many addicts are afraid to come forward out of fear they will be incarcerated. The people who are setting up these programs such as "Insite" intend it to be a step towards treatment. First step is to find and identify the junkies. Helping them stop involves getting them to first come into the centre. Many of them don't have the will to quit, or don't see a means of doing it. It's a hard thing to do to persuade someone, much like tobacco smokers. But the harm reduction part is an important first step.

Would be interesting to know the statistics from places like this, to see how many people eventually reach out for treatment.

The intention of these facilities according to the researchers is not prevention, but harm reduction. When the researchers that put together the Ontario report were asked about offering support to addicts with their addiction, it was clearly stated that the program is not trying to stop drug addicts from injecting. This program is about reduction of risk to users from infectious diseases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats from Vancouver seem to suggest that supervised injection sites haven't reduced users nor aids cases.

Pretty sure the stats I've seen some time ago showed the opposite. That seems counter-intuitive. Not sure where you are getting your information from.

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/research

Statistics:

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/supporting_research/user_statistics

Edited by Manny
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peeves

Some of you need to actually learn about the things you're criticizing before you post.

Right. I agree. Just discuss the merits from your own position.

And... others need to face facts and admit they only think they know about things they comment on.

For instance, "“We are always prepared to listen to good advice, and we make our decisions based on evidence,” Ms. Matthews said in a terse statement issued by her office less than half an hour after a press conference releasing the report. “[but] experts continue to be divided on the value of the sites.”

So if experts disagree why are some that aren't any where near as accredited so convinced they know best?

Certainly debate the pros and cons, but who here is THE expert?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/11/ontario-rejects-safe-injection-sites/

At $ 1 million 5 a site I would want to see a bit of proof that sites reduce addiction. If they don't, it's too expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peeves

Pretty sure the stats I've seen some time ago showed the opposite. That seems counter-intuitive. Not sure where you are getting your information from.

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/research

Statistics:

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/supporting_research/user_statistics

There are stats on anything some that are one sided some that are politically biased.

was listening to a talk show that seemed to point out many negatives..more users, more criminal types in the region etc. I admit that there are good things to come out of supervised sites but I don't like where we seem headed.

I don't suggest there aren't positives with these sites, but I dispute they reduce addicts or addiction or much crime either.

Though Vancouver is cutting the

collateral damage caused by hard

drugs, the city is making far less progress

in reducing the number of users.

Surveys report that drug use is higher

in British Columbia than in the rest of

Canada. A recent poll found that almost

half of all Vancouverites consider

drugs a major problem in their communities

— a figure double that for

residents of Canada’s biggest cities,

Toronto and Montreal.

With serious drug users come

rip-offs, break-ins and holdups for

fix money. So it’s no surprise that

Vancouver’s property crime and bank

robbery rates are higher than most

of Canada’s. The city also has more

gun-related crimes per capita than any

other in the nation, a fact at least one

criminologist has linked to the number

of substance abusers.

All of this underscores why widespread

drug addiction is ultimately everybody’s

problem. Obviously, getting

street addicts to clean up takes more

than free needles. It takes affordable

housing, mental health services, counseling

and treatment, all of which are

in short supply, even in Vancouver.

Pros and cons both in this examination of such sites.

http://www.vincebeiser.com/pdfs/VansterdamMM.print.pdf

Edited by Peeves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the object stated in the 'pro' site propaganda.

Peeves, it is not propaganda. It is their mission to provide an entry point for addicts, and give them the chance to get clean. If you read the literature on the Insite web pages you'll see this clearly. They are not a stand-alone facility, but part of an overall plan to get people into treatment. Considering the alternative approach prohibition and incarceration is failing and also costing money. It's worth a try.

As for statistics, I don't believe them at first glance because everything today is politicized. Even "science", much to our detriment. I use common sense as much as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats from Vancouver seem to suggest that supervised injection sites haven't reduced users nor aids cases.

They also confirm that the survival rate and general health of junkies is better.

And that is my reason for supporting InSite.

Addicts are humans. They cannot help themselves, nor can society help them if they are dead. Insite helps keep them alive. Seems simple.

It is true that some will never kick their habits and will die, but it is also true that some will kick, and InSite unquestionably enables that positive outcome.

It treats addiction as a medical issue, not a moral drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the object stated in the 'pro' site propaganda.

Nope.

Since opening its doors in 2003, Insite has been a safe, health-focused place where people inject drugs and connect to health care services – from primary care to treat disease and infection, to addiction counselling and treatment, to housing and community supports.

...

Insite operates on a harm-reduction model, which means it strives to decrease the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use without requiring abstinence from drug use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like the professional athletes who get addicted to oxy's?

Sure, if they're having their drugs provided to them at no charge on the tax payers dime.

Except safe injection sites aren't intended to reduce addiction.

Well, perhaps reducing addiction should be part of the process. Otherwise, we're just facilitating continued and ever-lasting addiction. How are these people suppose to ever lead productive lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...