Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
My contention all along is that people like peter12 who blindly attack anyone who has a concern with the effect on the community as being a NIMBY are doing a huge disservice to the entire issue and creates unnecessary division towards the communities that merely want to see things run smoothly and safely. It's not simply an argument of the data says everything is peachy, which is most surely not the case at all.
We can all agree that with drugs come huge consequences and that is no different with a user on the street or in a SIS. I'm against the notion that this is a sustainable, successful method of dealing with the problem without further investment and support at a variety of levels. Nevertheless, calling this program a success is highly problematic no matter what way you look at it until everyone of these sites is no longer needed. As it stands now, I just don't see a pathway to ending the cycle of use and repeat for many of the patients.
|
This is enormously disingenuous.
I have been very understanding that there is a local impact (typically 250 m) around the actual SIS. There is lots of mitigation that can and should be done.
Your premise that these are not successful methods of dealing with a problem at the street level is false and you maintain that falsehood by purposefully refusing to accept data or even expanding your very limited knowledge of what an SIS does to serve the community.