Vancouver’s safe-injection site
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
From a political slant, Toronto is basically a microcosm of Canada now. If you want a vision of the future, you should look here - many of the blunders are the same.
And a BIG BTW......90% of what is poked into the arm by opiate junkies was bought and paid for by you already through pharma programs.
Just buy them the powder for **** sakes.
Just buy them the powder for **** sakes.
Either that or just shoot all the junkies and mentally ill. Then we don't have to listen to those who don't have a clue as to what is really going on.
Well usually no one needs to have their hand held while the basics are explained to them. I understand you're inability to do your own research so I will take the time to explain it to you here so you don't have to go through all the effort on your own.
First when you remove the user from shooting up in the street you also remove some of the stigma from the area and reduce the litter left from injecting drugs.
Next while a user begins to access Incite, they start to form bonds with workers there. These workers become trusted and their advice is taken when they are there at the right moment and a user decides to attempt to move into recovery. Facilities are available as well as help access other social services. Every meal a user gets is a meal they don't have to go steal. When there is a home to live in, money doesn't need to be stolen for rent.
As a user moves into rehabilitation the crime associated with their addiction ends and they work toward becoming stable.
618 people have been referred to withdrawal management.
You don't understand the concept of harm reduction so what's the point of refuting this? Why do bars have parking lots Colpy?
I wasn't talking specifically about drugs, I know there are lots of drugs in prison......I was responding to this bit of inanity "getting tough on crime doesn't promise any reduction in crime at all does it?" And no, I had not spared a thought to your position on gun control....to quote Anne McLellan "That debate is over"
So you were talking about what? Cheque fraud? Insider trading?
The gun control debate isn't over, we're just going to stop talking about it for a few years and when a real government of the people returns to Ottawa, we'll strike that discussion up again and work at reigning in the lawless gun culture.
Yeah I didn't bring it up, I responded to it. Just try and stay with the tour alright.
Nope. You shouldn't play with concepts you are unable to understand.
Have you ever tried to convince a Green Party member to quit smoking up because indoor cannabis is extremely bad for the environment?
It's the same as trying to squeeze a nickel out a Conservative so he can save a dollar.
It's the same as trying to squeeze a nickel out a Conservative so he can save a dollar.
Now that is a decent answer! But answer this.......why can't counseling be offered with food and a bed and free needles....WITHOUT the actual permission to shoot up on site???
As for gun control.....good luck coming back in four years and telling the voters you will re-invent the registry.....at a brand-new bargain basement cost of $2 BILLION dollars....... for no gain.
It's dead. Deal with it.
Who the **** is going to show up? There are no beds or free food at Insite. They go there voluntarily because it is safe and it is clean.
Why do you insist on argueing over thing you have no clue about.
Go volunteer on your local govt funded needle exchange van sometime and learn something and more importantly be somebody for someone else.
Supervised injection facilities don't have a crime reduction rate as a goal, the goal is to reduce public harm, which study after study has found it does very well. Drug users aren't a separate population without ties to the non-drug users in their community. So attempts to address this source of public harm have very real impacts on those who are not drug users, but live within the same geographic regions...
This program has lead to increased use of detox services, reduced public injections, reduced drug associated litter, including used syringes, and reduced sharing of syringes. That has coincided with reductions in disease transmission, and ultimately reduced cost to an already burdened health care system. All without increases in drug dealers within the vicinity of the clinic, with no increase to drug related crime in the area, and with no increases in relapse amongst the addicts treated.
Another added benefit, is the coordination between law enforcement and public health. When policing goals and public health needs are aligned, as in the case of supervised injection facilities, the conflict between public order and health initiatives is reduced. A clear example in this case is the reduction of HIV transmission.
The evidence is quite clear, and the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
Some academic reading for anyone who cares about the facts:
Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility -- Wood et al. 175 (11): 1399 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy | Full text | Police and public health partnerships: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's supervised injection facility
This program has lead to increased use of detox services, reduced public injections, reduced drug associated litter, including used syringes, and reduced sharing of syringes. That has coincided with reductions in disease transmission, and ultimately reduced cost to an already burdened health care system. All without increases in drug dealers within the vicinity of the clinic, with no increase to drug related crime in the area, and with no increases in relapse amongst the addicts treated.
Another added benefit, is the coordination between law enforcement and public health. When policing goals and public health needs are aligned, as in the case of supervised injection facilities, the conflict between public order and health initiatives is reduced. A clear example in this case is the reduction of HIV transmission.
The evidence is quite clear, and the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
Some academic reading for anyone who cares about the facts:
Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility -- Wood et al. 175 (11): 1399 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy | Full text | Police and public health partnerships: Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's supervised injection facility
It's interesting to me that in the face of peer reviewed evidence, the Feds still want Insite shut down. This is playing politics and nothing more. I also find it interesting that the Conservatives are always the free market Laize faire sort. They always preach the methods of Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, Hayek, etc, etc, yet ask a free market economist what to do about drugs and he will say legalize them all.....prostitution too. If these economists are so smart as to know how best to run an economy (so the Conservatives believe), yet when it comes to an issue that they find morally inconsistent with their constituents, all of a sudden those economists don't know what they are talking about. It's easy to find this as well. There are lots of quotes on YouTube of these guys saying that legalization is the only answer.
I for one agree that economists are the ones best able to understand an economy and issues of supply and demand. On the issue of drugs, alcohol, prostitution and whatever else, I also agree with them. It would be one thing too to say as a rebuke, that there has not yet been an example from which to measure the theory that legalization is best. This is not the case as we saw what happened under prohibition. As well, we see the drug use disparity between the US, where drugs are tightly controlled, and the Netherlands, where some drugs are legal.
I for one agree that economists are the ones best able to understand an economy and issues of supply and demand. On the issue of drugs, alcohol, prostitution and whatever else, I also agree with them. It would be one thing too to say as a rebuke, that there has not yet been an example from which to measure the theory that legalization is best. This is not the case as we saw what happened under prohibition. As well, we see the drug use disparity between the US, where drugs are tightly controlled, and the Netherlands, where some drugs are legal.
Simple because after an addict has injected the drug, the problem of their single focus is gone for a while. Once they have injected, they can settle down a little and you might have a chance to get them some information, counseling, and other services offered at Insite. That won't work if the user has to leave to inject.
Like offering gun safety courses after they issue a license. Who the hell is going to go?
I'm not keen on supporting a criminal act. But Tonnington convinced me that this program is well worth the effort. So I hope it gets the SCC's seal of approval.
The safe injection site is a good thing, no it does not reduce crime or addiction and so be it.
The difference is a safe injection site at least provides a safe place for people to do what
they do. I think there should be some efforts made to help these people get off drugs and
lead an improved life. Over and over I have tried to work with people who have gone a long
way down that road and there is no recovery for some. A safe injunction site and even a
welfare check is better than rehabilitation. Sometime society tries to integrate some of these
folks into the working working, Training and training spaces are made available to people who
can no long function. If you can't do it, pay them to stay home and make training spaces
available to people who can move on and assimilate into the real world.
They are totally dysfunctional and letting them live in their own little world is cheaper for us in
the long run.
The difference is a safe injection site at least provides a safe place for people to do what
they do. I think there should be some efforts made to help these people get off drugs and
lead an improved life. Over and over I have tried to work with people who have gone a long
way down that road and there is no recovery for some. A safe injunction site and even a
welfare check is better than rehabilitation. Sometime society tries to integrate some of these
folks into the working working, Training and training spaces are made available to people who
can no long function. If you can't do it, pay them to stay home and make training spaces
available to people who can move on and assimilate into the real world.
They are totally dysfunctional and letting them live in their own little world is cheaper for us in
the long run.
The safe injection site thing, do they leave their dirty needles at the site, so that they're
not littering up the parks & playgrounds and streets & everywhere else, reducing the
odds of people (kids, ect...) innocent of the needle-junkie habit from contracting HIV,
etc...???
not littering up the parks & playgrounds and streets & everywhere else, reducing the
odds of people (kids, ect...) innocent of the needle-junkie habit from contracting HIV,
etc...???
That is the idea. They also have access to counseling, medical help and rehab programs. Much cheeper than jails, courts and policing and a better recovery rate.
Since when does anyone, let alone an illegal drug user, have the right to a "safe haven"?
Don't you think it's even worth debating whether or not it should even be illegal? I would argue it should be made legal....the use of the drug itself I mean. Not only that, even if it were to stay illegal, this is about harm reduction and the acknowledgment that you can try as hard as you want, but the war on drugs is one that cannot be won. People will use drugs either way, and arguably even more when they are illegal (evidence does support this to some extent).