Vancouver's safe injection site successful: study

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

All the stats have to say is that drugs are available in prison. That's it. So if a junkie gets thrown in the slammer and he still wants to use and drugs are available in prison...

The strategy of just tossing them in there and they'll clean themselves up clearly does not work.

Hell, I bet there are some people that become drug addicts in prison.

^This is what I'm trying to say.^

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

All the stats have to say is that drugs are available in prison. That's it. So if a junkie gets thrown in the slammer and he still wants to use and drugs are available in prison...

The strategy of just tossing them in there and they'll clean themselves up clearly does not work.

Hell, I bet there are some people that become drug addicts in prison.

Ok...if you go back and read what I wrote....I never said just throw them in jail and be done with them. I said rehabilitation is required. But I guess people just read what they want.

Second....your right....it says drugs are available in prison....It DOESN'T say how much is available, how OFTEN it is used and so on. 5% Having reported using intervenios drugs at least once in the last 12 months says nothing more than it doesn't happen that often. And those 5% could have all shared the same does. That is my point.....the stats provided prove nothing other than there are drugs in prison which I admitted to.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

How can any conservative support throwing them in prison anyway?

It's very amusing that the people usually saying "I don't want my tax dollars going toward helping junkies" are the same people who say "throw them in jail"

Do you not realise how much it costs to keep people in jail?

These alternative responses to treating drug problems are far, far cheaper then putting people in jail. And for once, they may actually work...

I fail to see any down side in using these sites

There are several factors involved. 1) putting them in jail prevents them from committing crimes and making our cities look like ****. 2)It is against the law and punishment should be delivered. 3) There is a possible end to there adiction if they are given proper treatment while in jail.....not just providing it for free and waiting till they die.

There is a big difference in spending money to give free drugs to someone and spending money to help rehabilitate, punish and remove criminals from the streets.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok...if you go back and read what I wrote....I never said just throw them in jail and be done with them. I said rehabilitation is required. But I guess people just read what they want.

Second....your right....it says drugs are available in prison....It DOESN'T say how much is available, how OFTEN it is used and so on. 5% Having reported using intervenios drugs at least once in the last 12 months says nothing more than it doesn't happen that often. And those 5% could have all shared the same does. That is my point.....the stats provided prove nothing other than there are drugs in prison which I admitted to.

Of all the numbers to take from those stats, the 5% one you hold onto is probably the worst.
The sample in that study was only 32 people, roughly half female, and all long term prisoners (not likely in jail for drug offenses).

That sample is not likely representative of drug users in jail, and shouldn't be used to downplay the amount of drug use in prisons.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Of all the numbers to take from those stats, the 5% one you hold onto is probably the worst.
The sample in that study was only 32 people, roughly half female, and all long term prisoners (not likely in jail for drug offenses).

That sample is not likely representative of drug users in jail, and shouldn't be used to downplay the amount of drug use in prisons.

As are the rest of the stats provided. If it so bad why even put it on the thread...that is my point. These stats don't really tell us anything.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Nothing over 6+ months.

Just for petty little things, but how this is at all relavant to this debate i do not know. What i have experiance with is people a know in the prison system currently, as well as having people i know in the past spend time in jail. As well as living the past 2 decades watching the DTES go from bad to worse. I say no more.

So you live in the DTES then? You are visibly there watching it every day? I live about five minutes away and regularily bus through there. It wasn't that bad until four years ago.

Meet any junkies in prison? Have talks with them about their life?

This is valid because you're saying jail is a cure all. I am saying it doesn't and I am using examples of family and friends who have been there, Aggamemnon has also provided statistics that back up my position of jail doing nothing to help junkies.

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

My comments are based on personal experiences, you haven't provided ANYTHING either, so i don't know where your going with this.

I don't have to prove anything right now. I have an article in the first post of this thread aswell as links others have posted backing my positon. You have nothing. The burden of proof is enitrely on you right now and you've got nothing except red herrings and trying to get off topic.

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Don't bother replying to the rest of it, i pay no attention to you or your sarcastic disrespectful antics - you will just waste your time.

This is a weak way out of having to explain your position.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

There is a big difference in spending money to give free drugs to someone and spending money to help rehabilitate, punish and remove criminals from the streets.

Someone is spending money to give free drugs away? Who? Where? Is there a line...?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok...if you go back and read what I wrote....I never said just throw them in jail and be done with them. I said rehabilitation is required. But I guess people just read what they want.

You said this:

If the Justice system actually worked.....the police would go down there and arrest every single one in possession of crack/herioin/meth and put them in jail for a few years. Get them clean and give them the tools to be a productive member of society.

While you did mention "giving them the tools", it really is a "round them up and throw them in jail" strategy, and history has proven it doesn't work.

And besides, you can't put someone in prison "for a few years" based on posession of a crack pipe.

Who would pay for this anyway? Rounding up thousands of people, housing them for 3 years and getting them off drugs and training them to do something productive would be a rather expensive proposition. I have no idea how much it would cost, but I have a pretty good idea of who would complain loudest about that cost.

All this talk of statistics is a bunch of blather for the two of us. Neither of us have a clue about "shared doses" or how things work in there. It has been amply demonstrated though that if someone in prison wants drugs, they can get 'em.

And I'm no addictions counsellor, but I don't think you can just force someone to stop being an addict.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As are the rest of the stats provided. If it so bad why even put it on the thread...that is my point. These stats don't really tell us anything.

I'm not sure I see your point... the one study you're latching on to had the smallest test group. I provided it because I'm trying to provide a bunch of info, not just that which narrowly defends what I'm trying to say here. These stats don't tell us anything if we don't want to analyze them, just dismiss them. Are the sources suspect? Research methods? Why don't they tell us anything?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

There are several factors involved. 1) putting them in jail prevents them from committing crimes and making our cities look like ****.

Everyone wants to prevent crime, but the point is there may be better ways of doing it.
Putting drug adicts in jail has done historically done nothing to prevent crime or reduce drug users on beautiful city streets. It's time to try something else.
An approach that helps drug adicts kick the habit before jail would likely do a lot more for keeping addicts out of the criminal system/reducing drug deals(where most of the crime comes from)/ and making our cities look nice.

2)It is against the law and punishment should be delivered.

You have a point here, but punishment does not lead to decreasing drug rates or crime which should be the real goals IMO.

Personally, I don't even think it should be a crime to do drugs. I don't think of a drug adict as a criminal, but rather someone who needs help. If we could help these people, it would be better for them, us, our finances, our jails, our streets etc...
Putting them in jail will never solve the problem.

3) There is a possible end to there adiction if they are given proper treatment while in jail.....not just providing it for free and waiting till they die.

Well, we better start with very large and expensive changes to the prisons first, because they're not doing what you are suggesting is possible. They are in fact, escalating the problem.

I'm not sure what the "providing it for free and waiting for them to die" part is refering to, so I won't comment.

There is a big difference in spending money to give free drugs to someone and spending money to help rehabilitate, punish and remove criminals from the streets.

There is a big difference, between rehabilitating and punishing.
The results our of prison treatment with drug users and the harm prevention methods show the 2 different results. I guess it's just a matter of what you want?
-Drug adicts in jail, no reduction in drug use, increased disease and costs, and wasted police resources
or
-Drug adicts cured and reduced drug use/disease/costs/safer streets

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You said this:

If the Justice system actually worked.....the police would go down there and arrest every single one in possession of crack/herioin/meth and put them in jail for a few years. Get them clean and give them the tools to be a productive member of society.

While you did mention "giving them the tools", it really is a "round them up and throw them in jail" strategy, and history has proven it doesn't work.

And besides, you can't put someone in prison "for a few years" based on posession of a crack pipe.

Who would pay for this anyway? Rounding up thousands of people, housing them for 3 years and getting them off drugs and training them to do something productive would be a rather expensive proposition. I have no idea how much it would cost, but I have a pretty good idea of who would complain loudest about that cost.

All this talk of statistics is a bunch of blather for the two of us. Neither of us have a clue about "shared doses" or how things work in there. It has been amply demonstrated though that if someone in prison wants drugs, they can get 'em.

And I'm no addictions counsellor, but I don't think you can just force someone to stop being an addict.

Ok...if you all read my first post on the thread....I said that I agreed with the idea if it works.....there is data to support both sides. It works by reducing disease thru drug use.....I don;t think it really does anything to stop the drug use.

If it is not reducing drug use then these people need to be removed from the streets as I have also said.

Data shows that inmates who have participated in education and employment programs and treatment programs for substance abuse, emotional, mental and sex offence, have a reduced rate of re-incarceration

http://www.justicemonitor.ca/correctionalissues.htm

As for going to jail for possession of a crack pipe......way to split hairs. Most people that have a crack pipe have crack.

SO:
CDSA
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.

7 Years is a long time.
How much do you think it costs society to have these people commit numerous crimes on inoccent people? One murder or aggravated assualt is to much. As for focing someone to quit drugs....you can.....lock them in a room without the drug......once they are over the withdrawl then start working with them. Yes I know it is not that simple....but it does more for them than just providing them a safe place to shoot up

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not sure I see your point...Are the sources suspect? Research methods? Why don't they tell us anything?

Here we go:

Drugs in Prison: There is extensive drug use and drug dealing in prison. In 1995, a survey of 4,285 federal inmates found that 40% used drugs since arriving in prison. This occurs because the climate of prohibition allows an economy that generates high income and guards and other staff can be offered high pay for assistance.

That stat tells us nothing other than 40% had used a drug since arriving in prison. What kind of drugs?? Asprin, pot, heroin? It does not tell if it was regular use or a one time thing.

Canadians incarcerated in prison have relatively high rates of HCV and other blood-borne infections and IDU is the predominant risk factor underlying their higher risk (Jürgens, 1996). A significant portion of the prison population consists of people who currently inject drugs or did so in the past.

So now we know people that enter the prison have a high tendancy to have a blood borne infections and as such if intervenious drugs are used in prison....it will spead to other people as syringes are hard to come by in prison. This is not a big suprise.

Studies conducted in Canadian prisons have found HCV prevalence rates between 28% and 40% (Canadian HIV/Legal Network, 1999). The most recent study of federal prison inmates (Lior et al., 1998) found 48% of inmates in the federal prison at Springhill, Nova Scotia to be users of injection drugs, of which 52% were HCV positive. Furthermore, 39% of users continued to inject drugs in prison and the majority (82%) reported sharing needles when injecting drugs

A study of ONE prison reveals 39% of drug users continue to use one they are in prison. Well.....that means 61% are not using.......can you get those numbers from a volunteer treatment program?

In another study, 39 long-term inmates (20 males and 19 females) were randomly selected from two federal institutions and invited to participate in a survey examining risk-taking behaviors (Calzavara et al., 1997). The participation rate was 82%. Inside prison, 56% used any drugs during the past 12 months, 28% injected drugs inside prison in the past 10 years, and 5% injected drugs during the past 12 months of their current incarceration. Needle-sharing was more prevalent inside prison than it was outside. Just under one-quarter (21%) reported infection with hepatitis C.

Like was said before....even tho this study supports my arguement....a study of 39 inmates makes for a large margin of error.....so this one should be just thrown out.

Research in this area reinforces the need for appropriate services to prevent HCV transmission within the prison walls as well as the community at large. Drugs are readily available in most prisons and those who inject drugs are at high-risk for infection because of the lack of access to harm reduction resources (Marte and Gatell, 1999).

Really? Just because Marte and Gatell say drugs are readily available doesn't make it so. Where is there data?

What proportion of the prison population has a substance abuse problem?

The majority of offenders show evidence some kind of substance abuse problem. Canadian national

prevalence data indicate that at least 7 of 10 offenders in the federal correctional system have engaged

in problematic use of alcohol and other drugs during the one-year period prior to their incarceration.

In Canada, about 51% of prisoners housed in federal correctional institutions have an alcohol problem.

About 48% of Canadian federal prisoners experience problems with drugs (other than alcohol).
In Saskatchewan, up to 93% of provincial offenders are identified as having a substance abuse problem.
A study of women offenders in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan revealed that 75% had been or were still injection drug users (IDUsv).

Substance use is a major factor in contributing to the re-admission of offenders back into custody following release. Canadian studies have demonstrated that as many as 70% of offender release suspensions involve alcohol and other drugs.

Again....big suprise that 70% of inmates have a problem with Alcohol or drugs. Whats the point of this stat?

To what extent are alcoholand other drugs available in prison?

Prisons house the highest per-capita proportion of persons with substance abuse problems in society.
Drugs are available in prison. Studies examining rates of substance use indicate that the per capita

use of drugs in Canada’s prisons is substantially higher than on the street. In addition, drug trade is also much more violent in prison than it is on the street. Indeed, alcohol and other drugs are available to some extent in virtually every correctional jurisdiction in the world. An interview study of 317 federal prisoners in Quebec revealed that 33% had used alcohol or other drugs at least once during the preceding three months. In addition, it is unlikely that even the best efforts of prison staff and officials can completely eliminate alcohol and other drugs from prison. Indeed, the notion of a “drug-free” prison has been acknowledged by some prison systems as “unrealistic.”36 In large measure, it appears that this conclusion has been reached based on attempts to balance security concerns with human rights

Wow....prisons hold the highest amount of durg users per capita...Per capita drug use is higher than on the street.....wow...seeing since 70% of the prison population have a substance abuse problem. 33% of 317 used drugs OR alcohol. Pointless stat if they don't want to seperate alcohol and drugs. Not to mention that leaves 40% of other inmates that are not using.....again probably better than a voluntary rehab program.

How serious a problem is injection drug use and needle-sharing in prison?

Given the large proportion of prisoners with substance abuse problems (many of whom engage in injection drug use), there is serious concern regarding the spread of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.

The HIV/AIDS infection rate of prisoners in the Canadian federal correctional system (1.7%) is more than 10 times higher than in the general population (0.13%). Rates of HIV/AIDS infection are particularly high among female federal prisoners (8% in the Prairie region).
Rates of hepatitis C infection among Canadian federal prisoners are even higher than those for HIV/AIDS with the overall prevalence rate (23.6%) more than 20 times higher than in the general population of Canada. Once again, overall rates of hepatitis C infection are much higher for female prisoners (41.2%) than for male prisoners (23.2%).
In Canada, approximately 18.3% of offenders reported injecting drugs before coming to prison. Of these, 54.6% injected during the six months before incarceration. A 1995 survey of inmates in federal custody found that 11% disclosed that they had injected drugs since coming to prison.

See how the numbers are all over the board.....any of these stats cannot be taken seriously.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Note...the above post had to be reduced by about 1000 characters so I deleted some words that I thought were not important to what I am talking about.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

This is a weak way out of having to explain your position.

You get the reply you deserve.

Your implying i need to live in the DTES or witness it each day to draw my own conclusions. Does one need to live in Iraq to realize it's in civil war? Does one need to be a US citizen to comment on the elections? Does one need to be a citizen of a EU country to debate the topic of Turkeys membership?

I don't need to live there in order to draw my conclusions, i've put forth my opinions on what i believe is right. Based on the fact of what i've read, what i've heard on the news, what i have witnessed through the years(seeing the situation go from bad to worse) and what my friends of Vancouver have told me. I've also based my arguments on what i have been through in the last 10 years, what i have witnessed myself with my group of friends and the people i use to surround myself with.

I'm very happy you bus through the DTES on a daily basis, but this clearly is completely irrelivant to this debate and is not of necessity.

In closing, i would like to point out you never replyed to my whole post - as you said you where going to. Mainly picking through it and replying to the places you actually have an argument. Failed to reply to any of the personal connections i have to this issue did you.

Your a joke.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Your a joke.

What's an "a joke" and where did he get one?