Supreme Court ruling opens doors to drug injection clinics across Canada

[Mike F]

The previous poster I quoted made the rehabilitation argument, so I asked for clarification.

As for what Insite's mandate is, I don't really care. My opinion of whether I'll support it or not is based on what I would consider significant benefits of such a clinic.

For me, simply living with a heroine addiction is not a viable long term strategy for the person or society. Yes, there are better ways to do it, but it's not enough. My support for a government supported clinic that in any way explicitly or tacitly supports heroine use will be influenced in large part on whether it is a significant contributor in helping people clean up, whether or not Insite wants to be judged on that or not.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by VO #23

The "positive results" of the clinics have been well-documented throughout this thread. For the last time: Insite's direct mandate is NOT to reform addicts through rehabilitation. It is more preventative in nature. There are OTHER SERVICES that deal with the addiction issues on a case-by-case basis. Insite is merely there to assist in preventing the transmission of disease, prevent death by OD, and offer some limited support to the addicts. It has, by many measures, been a great success in the area.

If all it does is prolong self-destructive wasted lives it would be better to take the money and provide for a few more beds in the local hospital. That would save lives too.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If all it does is prolong self-destructive wasted lives it would be better to take the money and provide for a few more beds in the local hospital. That would save lives too.

Huh, isn't your religion all about saving people like these?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Huh, isn't your religion all about saving people like these?

I'm all for treatment but, that isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about prolonging wasted destructive lives. We also need to acknowledge that our money isn't endless. Medical dollars are limited and there are areas were money spent could prolong productive lives.

In my religion Christ recieves whosoever will come to him. There is no option #2 where He comes and makes you comfortable in your sin.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If all it does is prolong self-destructive wasted lives it would be better to take the money and provide for a few more beds in the local hospital. That would save lives too.

In other words, "let 'em die".

You are an ambassador for Christian compassion, I'll give you that.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

In other words, "let 'em die".

You are an ambassador for Christian compassion, I'll give you that.

Nope "let 'em die" would be to pull funding from treatment programs and stop the prosecution of those who sell these drugs. I would like to see everything done that could help them kick their habits.

By chosing not to kick their habit useing whatever treatments are available to them these addicts are basically chosing death. Our government has enough common sense not to give liver transplants to alcoholics. I see this as no different.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Nope "let 'em die" would be to pull funding from treatment programs and stop the prosecution of those who sell these drugs. I would like to see everything done that could help them kick their habits.

By chosing not to kick their habit useing whatever treatments are available to them these addicts are basically chosing death. Our government has enough common sense not to give liver transplants to alcoholics. I see this as no different.

Decisions made to satisfy a serious drug addiction should not be treated as if they were made by the perspective of a fully-informed and rational decision-maker. End of story.

Funny how some Christians are so hung up about 'choices' when discussing drug addiction but then throw it out the window when abortion comes into the picture, but I digress.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Because drug abuse is never self contained. It preys on society and spreads like a disease. If an addict's average life once addicted is 10 years these clinics might add 5 years to that. I honestly can't see it doing much better than that.

That 5 years will be spent stealing from stores and family members if they still have contact; It will be 5 extra years of providing discount sex for anyone who will get you high or give you a few bucks; 5 more years of welfare payments and food kitchens; 5 more years of them dealing drugs or acting as mules for their drug dealers: 5 more years of in and out of jail and in and out of hospitals/clinics because you've been beaten up or you have gotton another STD; 5 more years of family dreading to get that phone call that tells them that little Johnny or little Jane finally finally finished killing themselves through the drugs or through the places they go and the things they do to get the drugs.

Easy access to drugs does spread it faster. Police not only are instructed to leave the clinic alone but also access to and from the clinic. That gives drug dealers a safe zone which I'm sure they use.

I realize within that 5 extra years the person might find whatever they lacked in the first 10 years to get off the drugs but, that is a faint hope and put up against the damage they do isn't a good investment.

Also, access to information on treatment programs is everywhere. It is at the walk in clinics and hospitals. It is offered at social services and at every stop in the legal system. There are people reaching out to them at the soup kitchens and homeless shelters. You don't need a police free zone/shoot up gallery in order to get that message out.

Would a lot of these worries be eliminated by just providing the drug then? If they are going to die anyway might as well get rid of everything you have posted above.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Decisions made to satisfy a serious drug addiction should not be treated as if they were made by the perspective of a fully-informed and rational decision-maker. End of story.

Funny how some Christians are so hung up about 'choices' when discussing drug addiction but then throw it out the window when abortion comes into the picture, but I digress.

Unborn babies don't chose to die and in our society we as individuals shouldn't be allowed to kill unwanted children. That should never be a choice.

Serious drug addicts are aware of where their addiction is leading them. These are not stupid people. They are fully informed. They gamble their lives for the next high or to avoid the lows they would experience if they tried to quit.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Would a lot of these worries be eliminated by just providing the drug then? If they are going to die anyway might as well get rid of everything you have posted above.

They've tried that in England. What they found was the addicts would need or desire more than what was provided. They would end up dealing at the front of the month or week to pay for the extra they borrowed the month/week before. The obvious solution from there would be to increase access to the government product but, health care professionals had a problem constantly increasing supply. Something about "doing no harm".

Drug addiction is progressive. A drug addict will need progressively more until they reach a point where every new high runs the risk of causing death. Do you really think the government should be involved in that process?

[THE SCUD]

MOD EDIT: Argue the the topic, not the poster, and do not troll other users.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They've tried that in England. What they found was the addicts would need or desire more than what was provided. They would end up dealing at the front of the month or week to pay for the extra they borrowed the month/week before. The obvious solution from there would be to increase access to the government product but, health care professionals had a problem constantly increasing supply. Something about "doing no harm".

Drug addiction is progressive. A drug addict will need progressively more until they reach a point where every new high runs the risk of causing death. Do you really think the government should be involved in that process?

Cool story. They haven't done it since the 1960's and even then it was prescribed by doctor only and rarely. Switzerland and the Netherlands have implemented such programs recently and have seen marked benefits. From the study ...

The consumption of illegal / non-prescribed substances was reduced significantly (especially the daily use of Heroin and Cocaine, to a lesser degree the regular use of Benzodiazepines, no significant reduction of Cannabis use).

Health status was significantly improved. Especially a reduction of depressive episodes and suicidal ideation, of epileptic attacks, of paranoid episodes was registered. Also, general physical health and nutritional health improved.

Regarding social integration, it may be mentioned that homelessness was significantly reduced, while reintegration into the regular labor market proved to be more difficult. Most spectacular was the reduction of criminal activities according to self-report and police data.

Retention in treatment was superior to what is observed in other forms of treatment. 60% of discharged patients could be transferred to a regular treatment program (about half of those to drug-free programs).

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...ion/ucht-e.htm

Because of that Britain is now looking at implementing a heroin assisted program again.

[hmmhmmcamo]

LOL @ the ridiculous/terrible/horrible comparisons....a drunk driving lane??? a place to beat your wife?? WTF CP...Seriously?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In my religion Christ receives whosoever will come to him. There is no option #2 where He comes and makes you comfortable in your sin.

Unless you’re a sex offender/pedophile priest or whatever...then the church/god/whatever has your back.

Nope "let 'em die" would be to pull funding from treatment programs and stop the prosecution of those who sell these drugs.

So how do you get these people into the treatment programs? My understanding is the Insite clinic gives these sick people an avenue to “be sick in a healthier way”. It also allows the staff to slowly gain the trust of these sick people and eventually steer some of them in a better direction ie. the awesome treatment programs you support.

I would like to see everything done that could help them kick their habits.

Awesome, then quit acting like the Insite clinic does nothing but enable people, because that is ridiculous.

[Tinordi]

A couple great articles about Insite:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2191042/

But the Harper Conservatives said they wouldn’t grant an exemption, thereby threatening the injection site with closure. There the matter rested until the Supreme Court said that such a decision – which it described as “arbitrary and its effects grossly disproportionate – risked lives (“security of the person”). This is another way of saying that the minister (and the government) ignored evidence, or stared at evidence and willfully ignored it.

The exercise of ministerial discretion, the court said, must rest on “evidence” and the “principles of fundamental justice.” It added: “There is … nothing to be gained (and much to be risked) in sending the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.” Concluded the court: “On the facts as found here, there can be only one response: to grant the exemption.”

These words are about as blunt as a court can use toward a government whose view of evidence is “arbitrary” and in whose hands decisions based on rights would be “risked.”

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen...0-80e06a8d967a

We've got HIV and hep C in Ottawa now. We've got overdose deaths. And we've got heaps of research from Europe and Australia, and heaps more from Vancouver, which tell us that a supervised injection site could help reduce the toll without jeopardizing community safety.
But the chief is opposed. Period. Doesn't want to talk about it. Case closed.
Ditto for Jim Watson. His mind is made up. As he said, he was "very clear about that in the last election." So that's the end of it.
To be clear, skepticism is fine. You're not sure a supervised injection facility is a good idea? You want to see more evidence and think carefully about it? Good.
That's reasonable. But the mayor and the chief aren't skeptical. Their minds are welded shut. They don't want the evidence gathered, reviewed, and discussed. They want people to shut up about it.
For almost a century, mayors and police chiefs have enthusiastically supported drug-law enforcement, no matter how much research showed that enforcement is futile and destructive, while they arbitrarily rejected alternatives supported by solid evidence.
Open the yellowed pages of a newspaper from the 1980s or 1970s. Or the 1950s. Even the 1920s. You'll find mayors like Jim Watson taking the easy way out. You'll find police chiefs like Vern White insisting that wet streets cause rain.
You'll find federal ministers who refuse to question their politically convenient beliefs. You'll find ordinary people angry that the status quo has produced disease, crime, and death - and who demand that officials do more of what they have always done and not try anything new.
On and on it goes, down through the years, and decades. Only the names change.