Safe Injection Sites approved for edm, Cgy announcement tba

[Muta]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Sure, but there's a lot better spots geographically in downtown that don't have a high concentration of businesses and residents.

Like where? Do you mean the empty lots in the Rivers District? Right from Crowchild to Eau Claire to 17th to Stampede Station it's all businesses and/or residents now.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

Has any jurisdiction tried free drugs?

Give concentration and volume controlled doses to those that want them and rehab and support services to those that want them and have a housing first policy to eliminate homelessness.

The crime side of this issue is driven by the need to acquire money to acquire drugs. These drugs are all pretty low cost to manufacture so why force the public to pay for black market prices through theft as opposed to an industrial produced lower cost option.

I'm almost sure we will get there at some point. It'll take time

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

This idea is probably the most sane, but ####... how? Is it humane to straight up give someone a substance you know they are addicted to and will make them unable to function, meaning they may have an awfully hard time living anywhere but the street? Isn’t there some huge ethical issue to giving and addict something that is likely contributing to the very lifestyle rehabilitation is trying to pull them out of?

I don’t know any real hardcore drug users, so I ask this question honestly; can someone on meth or heroin function to the point of working an actual job (sweeping a parking lot even) while they’re high? Does an addict have the ability to not get high if they had drugs waiting for them when they wanted?
I’m sure there lots of actual drug users out there who manage to keep it together. But if you were a user, and the option was either go to work to make a pay cheque to pay for rent or go to the centre and score another hit, housing be damned, which would it be?

The notion is great. Less petty crime and theft, no need for violent assaults of drug deals and robberies. But is the trade off having to accept a tremendous amount of people who are just existing to get ####ed up? Who is responsible for providing the housing and care for someone who has had their poison gifted to them?

I don't think it would be unethical if the focus is harm reduction. Any kind of policy like this would need to be closely monitored to see if it increased negative outcomes of overdoses or overall use in the population and numerous other indicators.

I don't know enough about the how homelessness occurs to comment whether or not a policy like this would increase it. I do have some thoughts though. If homelessness is caused by spending your recreational money on drugs until drug use prevents you from maintaining your job then homelessness would not change as a result of a free drug policy as the choice isn't free drugs or rent; Its drugs or rent. If homelessness is caused by people spending their money on drugs instead of rent then a free drug policy could keep them in housing. I don't see a case where free drugs cause homelessness among addicts.

Where I do see issues is that by providing access to drugs for free you increase overall use in the population. Though the reason most people don't use fentynal isn't cost so maybe it doesn't have an affect. You are right that if price is limiting use than reducing price would increase use and basic economics suggest that this would be the case.

As for who is responsible for the people who live life just to get high would be the same people who are now. Society currently bares the costs of these lifestyles through organized crime, petty theft, homelessness, incarceration etc. If something like free drugs were to work it would reduce these societal costs and decrease harm to users. Or maybe it turns out horrible and increases both the number and severity of addicts.

I think Portugal's success with decriminalisation is an interesting start. To me legal and government regulated seems like the next logical step if the goal is to treat this like an illness rather than a vice.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Sure, but there's a lot better spots geographically in downtown that don't have a high concentration of businesses and residents.

Classic NIMBYism. Not here, but over there.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Danijam

I’m feeling a bit misquoted here. It was all homeless people, not just the junkies. Also, Sliver is not a troll. This is who he is.

Most charming couple ever?

[Deviaant]

Originally Posted by peter12

Classic NIMBYism. Not here, but over there.

Pretty much sums up the majority of this thread.

[Ashasx]

"NIMBYism" has lost all meaning.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

"NIMBYism" has lost all meaning.

It's very simple. There are people who accept changes in their neighbourhood and people who don't.

[Ashasx]

At least it's not in your backyard, right?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

"NIMBYism" has lost all meaning.

I guess it depends what you thought it meant. While I can't guess, here's the definition the rest of us are using:

Nim·by
/ˈnimbē/
nouninformal
noun: Nimby; plural noun: Nimbys; plural noun: Nimbiess

a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or potentially dangerous in their own neighborhood, such as a landfill or hazardous waste facility, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.

Fill us in on your unique definition?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's very simple. There are people who accept changes in their neighbourhood and people who don't.

Turns out that increased crime is a change that most people aren't willing to accept.


But it's far easier for you to bleat meaningless phrases than acknowledge problems.

[Nyah]

I think NIMBY-ism is pretty rational in situations like this, especially if you have young kids and a family. SIS and the issues that come with them would be the last thing I'd want my kids around. As a woman, I wouldn't feel safe living or working around one either. I don't think that's a negative position to have at all.

[TheIronMaiden]

I am 100% for supervised injection sites, that said, I can sympathize why someone would not want to live near one. It's a complicated issue. Those who are concerned about them should not be ignored. That said, not implementing them IMO is not an option.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am 100% for supervised injection sites, that said, I can sympathize why someone would not want to live near one. It's a complicated issue. Those who are concerned about them should not be ignored. That said, not implementing them IMO is not an option.

Concerns can be mitigated appropriately, but to your point, this shouldn't extend to opposing necessary healthcare services to the vulnerable.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

Concerns can be mitigated appropriately, but to your point, this shouldn't extend to opposing necessary healthcare services to the vulnerable.

As long as it's out in a farmers field, surrounded by a huge wall with barbwire of course

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Turns out that increased crime is a change that most people aren't willing to accept.


But it's far easier for you to bleat meaningless phrases than acknowledge problems.

"bleat"

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I think NIMBY-ism is pretty rational in situations like this, especially if you have young kids and a family. SIS and the issues that come with them would be the last thing I'd want my kids around. As a woman, I wouldn't feel safe living or working around one either. I don't think that's a negative position to have at all.

My wife has worked in the area between Alpha House and the Mustard Seed for 5 years and does not feel unsafe going out each day. If anything, the drivers in the area are a much bigger hazard than addicts shooting the #### in the shade.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

My wife has worked in the area between Alpha House and the Mustard Seed for 5 years and does not feel unsafe going out each day. If anything, the drivers in the area are a much bigger hazard than addicts shooting the #### in the shade.

That's good - I'm truly glad she feels safe. I'm saying that I wouldn't personally feel safe living or working by a SIS, and that's okay. I'm pointing out that it's okay to have NIMBY-ism regarding places like this without being labelled as someone who just doesn't give a #### about addicts. There are lots of legitimate concerns.

[PsYcNeT]

Except safety isn't really one of them. Anecdotally or statistically.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Anecdotally or statistically.

Are you saying the Calgary Police are peddling fake news?