Todays article on Insite
The problem with Insite is people take their personal ideology into an area that many are not conversant in.
Myself i trust the science.
While Insite does go against the grain - What has been noted is there is not 1, 2 or 3 ways to get addicts of the drugs.
It also lowered deaths. The Lancet for one confirmed this.
The ones (organization)against Insite use false information, studies and ideology that have a pre ordained decision, so that makes it BS in my mind.
Julio Montaner: The science is in, Insite saves lives | Full Comment | National Post
Drug addiction remains a major public-health problem. Unfortunately, policymakers have been slow to support public-health interventions that have proven effective in clinical studies. Many of these interventions are recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and include a range of harm-reduction interventions that remain controversial in Canada.
One explanation for the slow acceptance of evidence-based interventions is the aggressive work of lobby groups that prefer the status quo. The over-reliance on drug law enforcement strategies under the “war on drugs” has been conclusively proven to be a costly failure. Law enforcement lobby groups seeking to “make the world drug-free” have sought to undermine the recommendations of leading scientific bodies, such as the WHO. These groups include Drug Free America, Drug Free Australia and the Drug Prevention Network of Canada.
One group that has opposed Insite is REAL Women of Canada. REAL Women of Canada and the Drug Prevention Network of Canada commissioned Drug Free Australia to produce a report that called into question a study published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, which reported a 35% reduction in overdose deaths in a geographical area around Insite.
Drug Free Australia’s critique has never been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal. It contains too many methodological and factual errors to list here. Most stem from a failure to appropriately consider the geographic location and causes of deaths. In fact, the critique simply lists the crude number of drug-related deaths, including suicides and alcohol poisonings, per year in a 400-block area. This was without any effort to consider how the population at risk changed over time.
In contrast, the authors of The Lancet study worked with the B.C. Coroner’s Office to accurately determine the location and cause of each death, and used census data to calculate changes in death rates in a 40-block area around Insite — where most Insite users reside. This approach, which is consistent with standard scientific practice and was peer-reviewed by experts in the field, demonstrated a 35% reduction in overdoses in the area around Insite.
This campaign was dismissed entirely by the Australian Medical Association. Likewise, one of the authors of the Drug Free Australia report, Colin Mangham, produced an earlier critique of Insite. However, after it was revealed that the RCMP funded the report, the RCMP itself admitted that the report “did not meet conventional academic standards.”