Safe Injection Sites approved for edm, Cgy announcement tba

[Ozy_Flame]

Dangerous is a relative word. 99% of them will not come after you and try to assault or stab you. Ask any emergency room psychiatrist or street team volunteer across many cities; them violently attacking is very much an exception to the rule.

To conflate things like talking to themselves, shouting, making a mess and erratic behavior with actual propensity to commit random violence is one reason why stigma exists against drug addicts. I'm not saying its impossible, but violently attacking random people - without provoking it - is improbable in most cases.

People who get attacked from "dangerous, irrational people" - violently - usually have provoked it in some form or fashion. That's my experience. It would be advisable to have street smarts whether around a safe injection site or not.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Dangerous is a relative word. 99% of them will not come after you and try to assault or stab you. Ask any emergency room psychiatrist or street team volunteer in across many cities, and them violently attacking is very much an exception to the rule.

To conflate things like talking to themselves, shouting, making a mess and erratic behavior with actual propensity to commit random violence is one reason why stigma exists against drug addicts. I'm not saying its impossible, but violently attacking random people - without provoking it - is improbable.

I've had a lot of experience walking through the DTES, but a better example is a good friend of mine who runs the main needle exchange in town. Out of the tens of thousands of interactions that she has with residents, she has had one encounter where police had to intervene. That's got to be an order of magnitude less than what a bartender has to deal with on an average Friday night.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Dangerous is a relative word. 99% of them will not come after you and try to assault or stab you. Ask any emergency room psychiatrist or street team volunteer across many cities; them violently attacking is very much an exception to the rule.

To conflate things like talking to themselves, shouting, making a mess and erratic behavior with actual propensity to commit random violence is one reason why stigma exists against drug addicts. I'm not saying its impossible, but violently attacking random people - without provoking it - is improbable in most cases.

People who get attacked from "dangerous, irrational people" - violently - usually have provoked it in some form or fashion. That's my experience. It would be advisable to have street smarts whether around a safe injection site or not.

- avoid eye contact
- don't engage
- keep on walking

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

- avoid eye contact
- don't engage
- keep on walking

100% this.

If someone's boss got stabbed with a needle, he's either extremely unlucky or provoked it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

100% this.

If someone's boss got stabbed with a needle, he's either extremely unlucky or provoked it.

The community polices itself too. I know that people look out for each other on the street. I've witnessed occasions where someone intervenes when someone is having an episode that involves passerbys.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

100% this.

If someone's boss got stabbed with a needle, he's either extremely unlucky or provoked it.

Victim blaming at its finest.

"If someone stabbed you with a needle you were asking for it! You were in the wrong part of town, or wearing the wrong clothes...the person being stabbed had it coming because people on mind altering substances wouldnt do something like that for no reason."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Victim blaming at its finest.

"If someone stabbed you with a needle you were asking for it! You were in the wrong part of town, or wearing the wrong clothes...the person being stabbed had it coming because people on mind altering substances wouldnt do something like that for no reason."

Did you just miss "extremely unlucky or"?

It's an extremely rare thing. Why is it controversial to say someone is either extremely unlucky or did something to provoke it? Those seem like literally the only two options.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

Victim blaming at its finest.

"If someone stabbed you with a needle you were asking for it! You were in the wrong part of town, or wearing the wrong clothes...the person being stabbed had it coming because people on mind altering substances wouldnt do something like that for no reason."

No one has been stabbed with a needle. Let's just all agree on that point.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And probably less so in other areas, as it's likely just concentrating the problem. So what's the go-forward plan?

I think a continued concentration of police presence is a good idea. And I like peter's idea about getting a deposit back for used needles. Outside of that...

So I can definitely appreciate your point that the SIS could be just concentrating the nascent crime that would otherwise be occurring in the city. I guess you'd have to dig in to the crime statistics to see if crime as whole was static over a larger area, say all of downtown, over the past 10 years and if so that would be a strong data point that it's just a concentration effect. It could be true, you'd have to have a large draw down in crime from other areas of downtown to achieve that though. If it's just a concentration issue then that removes one of the larger drawbacks on this site of increased crime in the city as a whole. I wonder if diffused crime is better than concentrated crime for the city though, concentrating it runs the large risk of ghetto-ization which thankfully our city has managed to avoid, I don't think anyone wants to have our own version of East Hastings here. I don't know what a good go-forward is though, this is one of the toughest societal problems we have and I think anyone who thinks they know exactly what to do is full of it. Substance addiction and mental health are incredibly complex issues that are hard to solve, and unfortunately for Calgary I could see this issue getting much worse as our economy slides with no pipelines. The needle deposit idea I think is a good one, along with increased Police presence so we're agreed there. I know they had the infrastructure ready with the Chumir center already there but I think there were much better places to put the SIS all things being equal. There's a lot of open space north of the saddledome by the river that is just grass and parking lots with no homes or businesses that would have been much better.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Did you just miss "extremely unlucky or"?

It's an extremely rare thing. Why is it controversial to say someone is either extremely unlucky or did something to provoke it? Those seem like literally the only two options.

I have Locke on ignore, I am literally dumbfounded as to what any other options there could possibly be in this situation

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

So I can definitely appreciate your point that the SIS could be just concentrating the nascent crime that would otherwise be occurring in the city. I guess you'd have to dig in to the crime statistics to see if crime as whole was static over a larger area, say all of downtown, over the past 10 years and if so that would be a strong data point that it's just a concentration effect. It could be true, you'd have to have a large draw down in crime from other areas of downtown to achieve that though. If it's just a concentration issue then that removes one of the larger drawbacks on this site of increased crime in the city as a whole. I wonder if diffused crime is better than concentrated crime for the city though, concentrating it runs the large risk of ghetto-ization which thankfully our city has managed to avoid, I don't think anyone wants to have our own version of East Hastings here. I don't know what a good go-forward is though, this is one of the toughest societal problems we have and I think anyone who thinks they know exactly what to do is full of it. Substance addiction and mental health are incredibly complex issues that are hard to solve, and unfortunately for Calgary I could see this issue getting much worse as our economy slides with no pipelines. The needle deposit idea I think is a good one, along with increased Police presence so we're agreed there. I know they had the infrastructure ready with the Chumir center already there but I think there were much better places to put the SIS all things being equal. There's a lot of open space north of the saddledome by the river that is just grass and parking lots with no homes or businesses that would have been much better.

You have to put it pretty close to where the community already exists or you won't see people using it. These are low-barrier and embedded services for communities who need them.

Let's just dispense with the weird concentration camp fetishes espoused by some posters in this thread.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Did you just miss "extremely unlucky or"?

It's an extremely rare thing. Why is it controversial to say someone is either extremely unlucky or did something to provoke it? Those seem like literally the only two options.

Yep, not sure how that's 'victim blaming' at all. Locke and Ozy don't get along, so this just looks like just an attempt to just go against anything Ozy says. I'm sure he'll respond to me with his usual hostility, too.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

The community polices itself too. I know that people look out for each other on the street. I've witnessed occasions where someone intervenes when someone is having an episode that involves passerbys.

If anything, I think society needs to help people work through "Bystander syndrome", and help people understand when to and when not to respond in situations. I think this could be beneficial for a number of personal safety scenarios, including engaging with folks on the street under the influence.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Dangerous is a relative word. 99% of them will not come after you and try to assault or stab you. Ask any emergency room psychiatrist or street team volunteer across many cities; them violently attacking is very much an exception to the rule.

To conflate things like talking to themselves, shouting, making a mess and erratic behavior with actual propensity to commit random violence is one reason why stigma exists against drug addicts. I'm not saying its impossible, but violently attacking random people - without provoking it - is improbable in most cases.

People who get attacked from "dangerous, irrational people" - violently - usually have provoked it in some form or fashion. That's my experience. It would be advisable to have street smarts whether around a safe injection site or not.

Well what would you consider provoking? I don't think looking people in the eyes or walking past them should count, that's unavoidable in lot of cases, anything short of verbal engagement or gestures shouldn't count. Certainly my car didn't do any provoking to the gentleman who decided to take a bat to it. I highly doubt the guys boss who got stuck was chirping at some junky on his way to work just to mess with him. I've been in the Chumir emergency room at 2 am with these people there and they will violently engage with people for no reason at all, I can promise you that I've seen it happen all three times I've been there. It's rare, I can agree with you and I'm not saying they're raging all day but they're orders of magnitude more dangerous than normal people and the spike in violent crime around the SIS since they began congregating there bears that out in hard data.

[PsYcNeT]

So are all these violent syringe-swinging property value plummeters actually heroin/morphine/injectable users, or is the uptick in street episodes attributable to fentanyl usage, which does not require a needle exchange or safe injection site?

[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.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by Sliver

My wife's suggestion is to load them all up on a cruise ship under the guise of a vacation, then sinking the boat once it gets nice and deep. Not sure if there is the appetite for that, though.

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.

[PaperBagger'14]

It seems like a weird position to take where we want addicts to be properly reintegrated into society, but also to not engage or even make eye contact with them.

I dont have the answers but I certainly dont understand this point of view.

[81MC]

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.

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?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by peter12

You have to put it pretty close to where the community already exists or you won't see people using it. These are low-barrier and embedded services for communities who need them.

Let's just dispense with the weird concentration camp fetishes espoused by some posters in this thread.

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