Supreme Court ruling opens doors to drug injection clinics across Canada

[transplant99]

So for those that support this clinic and those like them...is the claim that because this center is available, that every junkie using it will only do so when they are at said center? Can we really assume that because a clean needle is available at X clinic, that users will never use another needle at some other injection site? I simply refuse to believe that people sticking needles in their arm, (that are full of mind altering drugs) are able to think that clearly and MORALLY when needing that next fix.

The whole concept is so ridiculously flawed by the very nature of those it serves. Use that money for treatment clinics and it would make about 100 times more sense, but to provide a spot where they can safely get high without knowing where else they may be getting high and what they may be using to do so....is assinine.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Count me among those that think that.

That is astoundingly ######ed.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It's a moral obligation to enable people to shoot junk up their arm? Seriously?



I would rather help them get clean than shoot up in some clinic. That's just me though.

That is a great point.

I remember after all of those dead prositutes were found at a pig farm and the families of the victims all said "boy I wish I tried to clean them up, I dont know what I was thinking I can't believe I didn't try at all to save somebody I loved"

You sir should try and get a goverment grant I think you have the solution. You clearly have an understanding off this problem beyond others.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

[/B]

That is a great point.

I remember after all of those dead prositutes were found at a pig farm and the families of the victims all said "boy I wish I tried to clean them up, I dont know what I was thinking I can't believe I didn't try at all to save somebody I loved"

You sir should try and get a goverment grant I think you have the solution. You clearly have an understanding off this problem beyond others.

Ummmm.....what?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Because you can force a junkie to quit. I guess "force" isn't the right word. Trick?

My point is junkies are going to use whether we like it or not. Once we come to grips with that the next step is figuring out how to deal with that reality as efficiently as possible.

Sure you can force a junkie to quit.

You don't enable them, you make them hit the absolute crappy rock bottom, then you try to build them back up, and if it takes multiple rehabs stints and getting them away from the environment and getting to the underlying root of their issue then you usually have good success.

But merely giving them a site to shoot up without pushing the above as a condition of use is merely enabling their behavior.

And I agree with another point that was made, that with this model you're putting you're finger in a broken damn. These people are shooting up 24 hours a day, they're not always going to go to the center and its not always going to be open.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Count me among those that think that.

The government should not be in the business of enabling destructive behavior period.

where's the incentive to clean up if they can go to a clinic and get a clean needle full of free high grade heroin?

[burn_this_city]

The government enables the sale of smokes, booze, VLT's, scratch tickets, 649... ect

This problem is far too complex that any one thing will be the magic bullet. Short of kidnapping them, throwing them in a pit for 3 months you can't force someone to clean up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The government enables the sale of smokes, booze, VLT's, scratch tickets, 649... ect

This problem is far too complex that any one thing will be the magic bullet. Short of kidnapping them, throwing them in a pit for 3 months you can't force someone to clean up.

But you don't encourage them either.

You're right there's not a magic bullet solution, but setting up a 0 condition drug facility is not the answer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The government enables the sale of smokes, booze, VLT's, scratch tickets, 649... ect

This problem is far too complex that any one thing will be the magic bullet. Short of kidnapping them, throwing them in a pit for 3 months you can't force someone to clean up.

The lotteries, you have me there Fotze, but I don't see massive deaths caused by lotteries.

And can you please point me to the free booze store that the government is setting up?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The government should not be in the business of enabling destructive behavior period.

where's the incentive to clean up if they can go to a clinic and get a clean needle full of free high grade heroin?

Where's the incentive to go clean up if they can't go to a clinic?

As someone else pointed out, the government enables destructive behavior all the time. And they turn a tidy profit while at it.

I don't know if these safe injection sites are good or not, but we all know that "the old way" sure as hell didn't stop it. "We" gotta try something else. This seems like a good start to me.

[burn_this_city]

People don't die from the lottery directly, but they might piss away all their money gambling which eventually might lead to suicide. The whole idea of prohibition is ridiculous, the government and society in general is accepting of certain destructive behaviour, but not others.

[CaptainCrunch]

What's the incentive for them to go clean, if you provide them the ability to easily shootup, and further if the government supplies the drugs.

I'm not really for or against these clinics, I'm asking some fundamental questions here.

A friend of mine had a son who got hooked, and he was enabled (not by clinics) but hear me out. His parents gave him money, got him clean needles and give him a safe place to get high.

He didn't hit rock bottom because of that, and it took his parents tossing him out and not enabling him to realize that his choices were bad.

I'd be fine with clinics if they forced these addicts to take a hard look at their choices and put conditions on the use of the clinics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

People don't die from the lottery directly, but they might piss away all their money gambling which eventually might lead to suicide. The whole idea of prohibition is ridiculous, the government and society in general is accepting of certain destructive behaviour, but not others.

Thats a massive stretch compared to shooting poison directly into your system.

[burn_this_city]

http://archive.safety-council.org/in.../gambling.html

Gambling is implicated in 6% of suicides.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What's the incentive for them to go clean, if you provide them the ability to easily shootup, and further if the government supplies the drugs.

And what's the incentive for a drunk to stop drinking if bars continue to sell booze?

The government isn't going to convince a heroin addict to straighten up, injection clinics or no injection clinics.

I do get what you are saying, and it makes sense, but it doesn't work. I don't know what does, but pretty much any other tactic other than same-old same-old sounds good to me.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And what's the incentive for a drunk to stop drinking if bars continue to sell booze?

The government isn't going to convince a heroin addict to straighten up, injection clinics or no injection clinics.

I do get what you are saying, and it makes sense, but it doesn't work. I don't know what does, but pretty much any other tactic other than same-old same-old sounds good to me.

The incentive for that drunk to stop is he has to hit rock bottom. If you are intentionally doing everything in your power to prevent that from happening, odds are he isn't going to stop.

The idea that we would supply drug addicts with both free drugs and a safe place to inject them and somehow expect that this would lead to them getting better is so ridiculously backwards that it defies comprehension. Not only would the government enable an extremely dangerous addiction, but you would almost certainly cultivate an environment where this type of behaviour becomes more socially acceptable.

The life of a drug addict should be hard. It should be painful, embarrassing, shameful, etc. because that is the only way to bring someone to the conclusion that they need to make a change. Once they get there, then it's the moral obligation of others to help make that change possible. Creating a consequence free environment where someone can continue their dangerous and destructive habit all so that a few dollars on the bottom line are saved, is, in my opinion, pure evil.

[burn_this_city]

Where are people getting the idea they're getting free drugs?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Where are people getting the idea they're getting free drugs?

No one is saying that they are, but there are arguments that they should be getting free drugs and even people in this thread that are in support of this idea. That's who I was addressing in my last post.

[VO #23]

A lot of people in this thread keep talking about how clinics like Insite enable users by preventing them from hitting rock bottom and thus not forcing them to make much needed changes in their lives. I think subscribers to this line of thinking aren't fully appreciating that Insite serves as much a public health function as it is designed to help individual users. It's not just about helping the individual addicts (though this is obviously a huge part of it), it's also about trying to limit the amount of damage they do to others (and by extension, the DTES as a community of persons) by spreading illness.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by VO #23

A lot of people in this thread keep talking about how clinics like Insite enable users by preventing them from hitting rock bottom and thus not forcing them to make much needed changes in their lives. I think subscribers to this line of thinking aren't fully appreciating that Insite serves as much a public health function as it is designed to help individual users. It's not just about helping the individual addicts (though this is obviously a huge part of it), it's also about trying to limit the amount of damage they do to others (and by extension, the DTES as a community of persons) by spreading illness.

I get that...but it makes absolutely no sense.

Again, just because the junkie has a place to use a clean needle, doesnt mean that is the only place he/she will do so. Its absurd to believe that anyone who is jonesing for a fix and isnt within a clinics proximity is going to wait until the opportunity to get there arises. They are going to use whatever means available to satisfy the addiction. So the money being spent to supply the safe place really would be wasted the second that addict doesnt use the facility and uses a dirty needle in the alley behind the fleabag bar.

Im all for helping this segment of society (as it is a horrendous place to find oneself), but IMO this particular option makes no difference....and instead may be taking away resources from what really needs to happen...... treatment and breaking the addiction.