Insite Given Exemption By SCoC
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
When you chimed in we were discussing addicts getting their drugs through medicare.
Getting it right would be legalizing pot and regulating it, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I believe you asked me that in my other quote, but for the sake of argument I will reiterate. Many doctors are reluctant to prescribe medical marijuana, how apt do you think they would be to prescribe heroin for an addict?
Hypocritical horse hockey. We are busting our asses to make tobacco as difficult to get as possible. A package of cigarettes cost around 10 bucks retail. This is the result of taxes imposed to get people to quit. As a result of this tax on cigarettes we have a thriving underground market for cigarettes. So give your head a shake and listen to what I am saying instead of splitting hairs.
If the Feds legalized all drugs, health care costs would skyrocket.beyond belief.
We have legal drugs that are prescribed now that being sold illegally. and criminal activity is thriving. Ever heard of Hillbilly Heroin? Think that would be any different with Heroin or meth and even if it wert outright legal we'd have even more people dying on the street because this crap is poison. You wouldn't be able to build the shooting stations fast enough.
I answered your question? You failed to answer any of mine.
We will never agree on this.
You've also failed in that you're still letting the existing network do your dealing.
They're the people you want out of business. If all junk was controlled and regulated through outlets like the coffee houses of Amsterdam or the LCBO in Ontario, how can street peddlers compete? There will always be means of getting around a legal system. There always have been. Locks only keep honest folk honest. If the hit you had before is the same as the hit you'll have next time, ODs drop.
They're the people you want out of business. If all junk was controlled and regulated through outlets like the coffee houses of Amsterdam or the LCBO in Ontario, how can street peddlers compete? There will always be means of getting around a legal system. There always have been. Locks only keep honest folk honest. If the hit you had before is the same as the hit you'll have next time, ODs drop.
All the junk in big tobacco is controlled and regulated. Guess what?
What makes you think that drugs would be any different. Pretty son the Government would start taxing the crap out of everything to pay for the health costs, the regulatory costs, the licensing, the oversight. Then when its all said and done along comes the criminal element to move in on this over-regulated industry.
There is already an underground economy for cigarettes. It wouldn't take long before the network would simply reinvent itself.
Really?
So, the "treatment" is to help them jam more poison into their veins?... I can just see you convincing yourself that you are helping these people struggling with addiction - maybe you can "help" by actually going down to Insite and and tying-off someone; if you've got the stomach, you can even inject them.
The moment that they're all f*cked up as the poison hits their system, then - and only then - you can sell them on the merits of kicking the habit.
Make sense to you?
Last edited:
Though I support Insite. You guys make a compelling argument.
It's very much like demanding First Nations become more proactive in their environment, but paying them to stay home.
Something, I do not support.
I'm conflicted.
Make no mistake, my animosity towards Insite is not based on wanting to 'penalize' people that have addiction problems. My focus is more squarely placed on providing services that will assist in their rehab as well as provide medical support during their 'process', supporting rehab efforts as well as after they have made an attempt to go straight.
My interpretation of Insite's present work is that it delay's the healing process.
You could tax the living hell out of weed, opiates, cocoa and chemistry - even more than tobacco and alcohol are now - and you'd still never come close to the dealer mark-ups and product shrinkages that risk adds to cost.
You have your opinion. I have mine. War sure is keeping a lot of cops, court people and corrections staff busy....
I see the economic argument that you are making, but that does not address the destructive component relative to this issue.
Lives are ruined; not only the addict's life, but their family as well... And let's not forget that opiates and substances like crack and meth (generally) do not allow the user to function in society in terms of holding down a job in order to finance their habit. The fallout from that is that they need to pursue options that will generate fast cash. By in large, this is going to be generated by prostitution or theft.
The collateral costs of that, along with the ongoing medical issues (short AND long term) will probably outweigh the economic argument even if the gvt sold the goods for street values.
According to the Vancouver Health Authority, overdoses in the immediate area are down 35%. I'm trying to imagine what benefit there is to going back to simply arresting them and letting them out the same day. There is no room in the criminal justice system to process these people so what is it that the cops think they can down there to make things better?
So what good is imprisoning them or adding a conviction to an already dismal profile? Addicts will always be. Someone will always supply them - until such a time comes that they either want a change or die. As long as organized crime can wring a buck from it, it will.
It's not that much different from business....
It's not that much different from business....
... Except, business' pay through the ass in taxes.
Fair enough.. The reduction in OD's is a real victory (and I do sincerely mean that).... However..... What is the % of users that are getting high at Insite as compared to elsewhere? Let's face facts, it's only a matter of time before that 'mild' OD turns into something that is fatal and Insite only works if the user is at the facility when the event occurs.
Which of course is charged back to the consumer! :smile:
That's why I'm in favour of hanging or shooting suppliers.
What does that mean JLM?
The gvt is the only one that benefits off of that.
That is a very interesting analogy. It's suggests that we pay lip-service to the issue but refuse to actually work to solve the problem or address the issue.
Life is far too short to pussy-foot around; I say man-up and deal with the issues head-on.
I don't know if it's refusal, or attempting a different way, or enabling, at this point.
But I would like to see Insite given a longer mandate to see where it leads.
Trust me, I absolutley understand that. But from my experience, addicts usually react defensively.
In a manner of speaking, but the consumer ultimately pays the tax, but then some of the tax does get syphoned back to the consumer.
I too am really confused... I try to look at things in a problem-solution format. Maybe that form of logic is just too simplistic to do justice to the issue.