INSITE [safe injection sites] ?

haffajappa

This is a pretty relevant debate lately for Canada and, maybe more specifically, British Columbia... Considering we have one of the biggest homeless and drug problems in the country and Vancouver was the first city in North America to open a safe injection site. From what I understand, the supreme court is reviewing the federal government's submission that they have the authority to shut down Insite (our provincial government had granted an exception from drug laws for the centre).

According to the media, peer-reviewed research has found that the project:
1) Decreases crime in surrounding areas
2) Decreases overdoses and deaths from overdoses
3) Increases the percentage of addicts who go for treatment, rehabilitation or detox
4) Decreases the risk and contains the spread of HIV

Apart from the obvious reasons why it would absolutely pain the Conservative government to allow Insite to continue on, an article I read today suggested it supposedly goes against Harper's "tough on crime" shtick... and he won't stand for that, will he?

Just wondering what everyone's opinions are on safe injection sites?

BG44858

addiction is a health issue, it should not be considered criminal...
every major city should have a place like Insite...
thank you so much for the groundbreaking work being done there...
i hope the conservatives don't get the upper hand ...
"tough on crime" should focus on crime, not addiction
there's my 2 cents

Drowned Out

You pretty much said it all haffa (tho you know I'm goin on a broad rant on this! ) - the research clearly shows it benefits everyone to promote harm reduction over prohibition, and we just voted in a majority government led by a guy who has gone on record with this opinion of harm reduction: "...we'll keep you addicted [sic], but reduce the harm just the same. That in my mind has got to be a second best strategy at best...". As usual, they're at odds with science.

The Cons are following the model of the US, the country with the highest per capita prison population in the world....and not coincidentally, the world's leading nation when it comes to drug consumption....It makes me sick to watch them talk on one hand about 'prevention' (ie: enforcement) being the best way to help addicts...while on the other hand pushing for privatization of the prison system, or at least an expansion of the P3 model - a clear right-wing political agenda designed (and proven time and again in multiple nations and industries) to benefit corporations more than the public.

It's why they were found in contempt of parliament - they won't explain the costs of their proposals. They want mandatory minimums for drugs, but don't even have any for violent crimes! It's so obvious to anyone who is paying attention - they are not doing this to help the people, they're doing it to support a corporate agenda. People shrug harm reduction policy off as taboo, or an issue that isn't worth their time, completely ignorant to how far reaching the social and economic ramifications of continuing, or accelerating prohibition are...

The Cons have promised to bundle their tough on crime initiatives into one bill in the first hundred days and pass it...Canadians are not asking for stricter enforcement of drug laws, it's being forced upon us.

Politicians who support prohibition support organized crime.

zarocat

Drowned Out wrote:

The Cons are following the model of the US, the country with the highest per capita prison population in the world

haffajappa

BG44858 wrote:

addiction is a health issue, it should not be considered criminal...
every major city should have a place like Insite...
thank you so much for the groundbreaking work being done there...
i hope the conservatives don't get the upper hand ...
"tough on crime" should focus on crime, not addiction
there's my 2 cents

yeah i think it should be a health issue too.
previous addicts are speaking out on the issue and attributing their sobriety (and the fact that they're alive!) to Insite...

haffajappa

Drowned Out wrote:

You pretty much said it all haffa (tho you know I'm goin on a broad rant on this! ) - the research clearly shows it benefits everyone to promote harm reduction over prohibition, and we just voted in a majority government led by a guy who has gone on record with this opinion of harm reduction: "...we'll keep you addicted [sic], but reduce the harm just the same. That in my mind has got to be a second best strategy at best...". As usual, they're at odds with science.

The Cons are following the model of the US, the country with the highest per capita prison population in the world....and not coincidentally, the world's leading nation when it comes to drug consumption....It makes me sick to watch them talk on one hand about 'prevention' (ie: enforcement) being the best way to help addicts...while on the other hand pushing for privatization of the prison system, or at least an expansion of the P3 model - a clear right-wing political agenda designed (and proven time and again in multiple nations and industries) to benefit corporations more than the public.

It's why they were found in contempt of parliament - they won't explain the costs of their proposals. They want mandatory minimums for drugs, but don't even have any for violent crimes! It's so obvious to anyone who is paying attention - they are not doing this to help the people, they're doing it to support a corporate agenda. People shrug harm reduction policy off as taboo, or an issue that isn't worth their time, completely ignorant to how far reaching the social and economic ramifications of continuing, or accelerating prohibition are...

The Cons have promised to bundle their tough on crime initiatives into one bill in the first hundred days and pass it...Canadians are not asking for stricter enforcement of drug laws, it's being forced upon us.

Politicians who support prohibition support organized crime.

it really is a shame that a program such as this is attempting to be terminated over someones political agenda. I could see if the conservatives offered up another effective solution to the problem. I was saying theh other day I was curious to know if Harper has even visited the DTES

polaris_x

i concur

fife

BG44858 wrote:

addiction is a health issue, it should not be considered criminal...
every major city should have a place like Insite...
thank you so much for the groundbreaking work being done there...
i hope the conservatives don't get the upper hand ...
"tough on crime" should focus on crime, not addiction
there's my 2 cents

sadly, due to our recent election harper does have the upper hand. he can do basically what he wants. I have actually been to the INSITE as a part of my job when i worked in harm reduction. They do great work there but sadly, politics and stupid people will get in the way and this place will be closed. WHY you ask, because "crackheads" as many conservatives call them don't vote

Drowned Out

fife wrote:

WHY you ask, because "crackheads" as many conservatives call them don't vote

This is part of what I was trying to get at above...
I don't think the problem is crackheads not voting...I think the problem is that the squares don't care
Drug users are obviously a minority, esp hard drug users....they don't have much sway when it comes to drug law reforms.
The Cons who categorize any drug user as a crackhead are also a minority....they are only a portion of the Con base, and only what, 23% of canadians voted for the Cons? The majority of Canadians support drug law reforms, yet they pay no attention to these crime bills...the only opposition to them comes from anti-prohibition groups, and select leftist politicians (Libby Davies is a hero!) No one else seems to have a clue or give a shit when you bring it up. For anything to change, we need the people who SAY they support these reforms, but leave it to the users and activists, to get involved. I sometimes think the only way to convince them to do so is to show them dollar figures and explain how outright STUPID the Cons position is...unfortunately (again), the Cons won't show us the numbers.....so good ol' apathy rules.

Drug use is on the decline...there is NO reason to tighten laws other than to force their outdated religious-right morality, and corp agenda on us to their own benefit.


I mean....Compare the positions of these two guys, and tell me who knows their shit, and who knows they're lying thru their teeth:

Jack Layton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5-x6NVYBYM
Stephen Harper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFp210pZSKk

Harper can barely get a sentence out without stammering; he knows he's cornered and trying to BS his way thru. Layton is relaxed (probably high ), thoughtful, and logical in his statements....plus it's an old clip, and his position has always remained consistent...


man I can rant on this shit, sorry :oops:

Drowned Out

oops! quoted myself instead of editing (double post)

haffajappa

I just don't understand the logic.
A program that so far is proving to help rehabilitate drug users AND keep crime down
vs
Locking people up and being "tough on crime" - only to have the people released into the same problem

It's ridiculous.

jethrojam420

If you ask me they should mandate education and/or usage of methadone to go along with the safe needle usage. you shouldnt require the user to use the methadone instead, but certainly they should be made aware of its existence and state paid availability so as to possibly rehabilitate themselves.

zarocat

Drowned Out wrote:

Stephen Harper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFp210pZSKk

"I don't think these would be respectable businesses run by respectable people"

What an ignorant human being he is.

keeponrockin

What I don't understand is Stephen Harper's SO against drugs, yet the government is actively in the business of selling booze, with the LCBO being the number one alcohol retailer in the world.