There's no doubt crime has increased on all fronts, but Davidson is not wrong about the stats argument. It's more effective to talk in large percentage increases when conveying a message to the general public. Media and politicians use this all the time (UCP waxed this all the time during the last election about the corporate tax rate). If you had two murders in a town, and the previous year you had one, that's a 100% increase in the murder rate. And someone will most likely contextualize as such.
The report also uses statistics within a 250m radius of the Shumir compared to previous numbers. What did they expect to find? Lower numbers? Maybe its more accurate to measure against similarly-position urban consumption sites in other similar cities and see what those fluctuations are.
All this said, I do believe there is a better spot for the safe injection site, I just don't know where.
We should round them up and put them in camps. Give them all the drugs they want. If they want to get sober, they can go to another controlled camp with no access to drugs. Stay sober for - IDK, say 45 days - then they can be released.
As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have no interest in coddling to the best interests of junkies. Let's put productive people first and ship the junkies somewhere out of sight and out of mind. I'd be furious if you tried to open a safe injection site around me.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
There's no doubt crime has increased on all fronts, but Davidson is not wrong about the stats argument. It's more effective to talk in large percentage increases when conveying a message to the general public. Media and politicians use this all the time (UCP waxed this all the time during the last election about the corporate tax rate). If you had two murders in a town, and the previous year you had one, that's a 100% increase in the murder rate. And someone will most likely contextualize as such.
True, and the actual report (linked in the original news article) breaks all that down and shows the numbers behind the percentages.
Quote:
The report also uses statistics within a 250m radius of the Shumir compared to previous numbers. What did they expect to find? Lower numbers? Maybe its more accurate to measure against similarly-position urban consumption sites in other similar cities and see what those fluctuations are.
I think that showing the area against itself is a good thing, showing that there is much more of an increase than was expected or we were 'sold on', as it were. And it shows exactly how this site is affecting that neighborhood. But I also think it'd be handy to have some other-city comparison numbers for their 250m buffer zones, too, to see how Calgary stacks up overall.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
There's no doubt crime has increased on all fronts, but Davidson is not wrong about the stats argument. It's more effective to talk in large percentage increases when conveying a message to the general public.
The report also uses statistics within a 250m radius of the Shumir compared to previous numbers. What did they expect to find? Lower numbers? Maybe its more accurate to measure against similarly-position urban consumption sites in other similar cities and see what those fluctuations are.
Even with the magnifying glass on site now and massively increased police presence, the crime stats are still up.
The news article has the link to the report though and it is an eye opening read.
And looking at the report, 250m isn't a bad gauge of things, it encompasses a reasonable area around the epicenter roughly 2-3 blocks around it.
As for expectations, of (obvious) increased crime - Calgary and area residents were sold on the claim that crime in the area would not change. Now that the site is entrenched, I doubt they are going anywhere regardless of the effect on the surrounding community. They trojan-horsed that in now.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-disagree.html
“If there’s an increase in crime, it’s not about the sites,” said Zoe Dodd, a harm reduction worker who co-organized the pop-up injection site at Moss Park, which later received federal approval to keep operating. “It has more to do with the increase in poverty and social inequality. We put the sites where people are already congregating, using and dying.”
The woman who pioneered Canada's first-ever supervised consumption site inside a residential building says over the last two years, they have reduced crime, prevented overdose deaths and drastically reduced the number of dirty needles discarded in common areas.
We should round them up and put them in camps. Give them all the drugs they want. If they want to get sober, they can go to another controlled camp with no access to drugs. Stay sober for - IDK, say 45 days - then they can be released.
I am sure you can agree history does not speak kindly of putting marginalized people in camps. No good comes from that.
Fully reading the report, I think the statistics are reasonably presented. They specifically focused on the 250 m distance to better measure the effect of the injection site on the community.
The report also does not just compare the crime rates versus the prior year but compares them against a running average of the last 3 years AND also provides the same comparison for the downtown core AND versus the rest of the city to provide better understanding of the effect of the injection site.
Just extracting some numbers (Injection area, Centre City, Rest of City)
In nearly category, there is a massive increase in crime versus the downtown core even with a large visible increase in police presence. The increase is even more obvious versus looking the average for the city. I would suggest that the "spin" that the percentages look big because the numbers in 2015, 2016 and 2017 were "small" is exactly that, spin. The percentage increases are real and not a fantasy.
Fully reading the report, I think the statistics are reasonably presented. They specifically focused on the 250 m distance to better measure the effect of the injection site on the community.
The report also does not just compare the crime rates versus the prior year but compares them against a running average of the last 3 years AND also provides the same comparison for the downtown core AND versus the rest of the city to provide better understanding of the effect of the injection site.
Just extracting some numbers (Injection area, Centre City, Rest of City)
In nearly category, there is a massive increase in crime versus the downtown core even with a large visible increase in police presence. The increase is even more obvious versus looking the average for the city. I would suggest that the "spin" that the percentages look big because the numbers in 2015, 2016 and 2017 were "small" is exactly that, spin. The percentage increases are real and not a fantasy.
I listened to all the talk about how good safe injection sites are a good thing and they work in other cities. I got on the bandwagon, i was convinced. Count me in as someone who’s getting off. The increased crime did it. So much for being a progressive.
I don’t have the statistics but it’s not hard to see the increased crime around the safe injection site. If you’re a drug dealer, where’s the best place to hang out?
Building owners in the area are taking more precautions and you can see a bit more of a police presence.
The point of safe injection sites was to try to reduce drug use and crime. We’re getting the opposite. A 300% increase in overdoses at the drop in. Safe injection sites were suppose to change all of that.
There are more needles lying around downtown (parkades, between buildings etc ) then i’ve seen in the last seven years.
I’m not buying into the arguement that if i wait a hundred years we’ll see the effects of safe injection sites. Sorry.
Last edited by stampsx2; 05-30-2019 at 10:37 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
We should round them up and put them in camps. Give them all the drugs they want. If they want to get sober, they can go to another controlled camp with no access to drugs. Stay sober for - IDK, say 45 days - then they can be released.
As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have no interest in coddling to the best interests of junkies. Let's put productive people first and ship the junkies somewhere out of sight and out of mind. I'd be furious if you tried to open a safe injection site around me.
Interesting... as a taxpayer and a citizen I find sociopaths threatening. Let’s put cooperative and empathetic people first and ship the psychos to a camp out of sight and out of mind. Show empathy for 45 days and maybe we’ll let them out.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
I actually wonder if the stats are also compounded by the rise in use of meth and fentanyl. The numbers in the CPS show yearly increases in their usage, and as someone close to the healthcare industry, these cases are becoming all too frequent, with increasingly harsh consequences on the addict, their surrounding family and friends, and society.
Interesting... as a taxpayer and a citizen I find sociopaths threatening. Let’s put cooperative and empathetic people first and ship the psychos to a camp out of sight and out of mind. Show empathy for 45 days and maybe we’ll let them out.
Isn’t that called prison? Seems to work for the most part.
I listened to all the talk about how good safe injection sites are a good thing and they work in other cities. I got on the bandwagon, i was convinced. Count me in as someone who’s getting off. The increased crime did it. So much for being a progressive.
I don’t have the statistics but it’s not hard to see the increased crime around the safe injection site. If you’re a drug dealer, where’s the best place to hang out?
Building owners in the area are taking more precautions and you can see a bit more of a police presence.
The point of safe injection sites was to try to reduce drug use and crime. We’re getting the opposite. A 300% increase in overdoses at the drop in. Safe injection sites were suppose to change all of that.
There are more needles lying around downtown (parkades, between buildings etc ) then i’ve seen in the last seven years.
I’m not buying into the arguement that if i wait a hundred years we’ll see the effects of safe injection sites. Sorry.
The point of safe injection sites was never to reduce drug use and crime, it was to protect drug addicts from themselves and giving them clean needles and prevent spread of costly disease. They can shoot in a medically supervised environment. People can get high and be in safe hands and prevent overdoses and diseases from spreading. This is supposed to reduce medical cost overall while keeping our drug addicts safer.
That's the fantasy.
The reality is that by allowing needles to be taken offsite instead of mandating all needles administered at the facility, safe injection sites are merely a distribution center for free needles. Drug addicts just take the free needles and shoot up in a park nearby, with the money saved on needles to be used for more important stuff, like drugs. A person on fenthanyl won't think "Oh I just used this needle let's safely dispose of it" as a socialist would think, they go "#### I need my fix! I need money!" while he throws the needle in a playground and starts breaking into cars. He's a goddamn drug addict and high, he's not thinking logically.
It simply made it easier and cheaper to be a drug addict. They are all congregated to the area that gives them free stuff, and drug dealers go to where their clients go. Since drug addicts still need money for drugs, they commit crimes to get money for those drugs. More drug addicts, more drug dealers, more crimes, but hey let's look at this myopic study to show that it indirectly lowers medical costs in one area. And since this is congregated to one area, it's no longer a problem since the break in is not happening in my suburban home.
Safe injection sites as they are implemented today are more about a self pat on the back than they are about resolving social problems.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The point of safe injection sites was never to reduce drug use and crime, it was to protect drug addicts from themselves and giving them clean needles and prevent spread of costly disease. They can shoot in a medically supervised environment. People can get high and be in safe hands and prevent overdoses and diseases from spreading. This is supposed to reduce medical cost overall while keeping our drug addicts safer.
That's the fantasy.
The reality is that by allowing needles to be taken offsite instead of mandating all needles administered at the facility, safe injection sites are merely a distribution center for free needles. Drug addicts just take the free needles and shoot up in a park nearby, with the money saved on needles to be used for more important stuff, like drugs. A person on fenthanyl won't think "Oh I just used this needle let's safely dispose of it" as a socialist would think, they go "#### I need my fix! I need money!" while he throws the needle in a playground and starts breaking into cars. He's a goddamn drug addict and high, he's not thinking logically.
It simply made it easier and cheaper to be a drug addict. They are all congregated to the area that gives them free stuff, and drug dealers go to where their clients go. Since drug addicts still need money for drugs, they commit crimes to get money for those drugs. More drug addicts, more drug dealers, more crimes, but hey let's look at this myopic study to show that it indirectly lowers medical costs in one area. And since this is congregated to one area, it's no longer a problem since the break in is not happening in my suburban home.
Safe injection sites as they are implemented today are more about a self pat on the back than they are about resolving social problems.
So what’s the solution? Should we get rid of self injection sites?
The Following User Says Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
The point of safe injection sites was never to reduce drug use and crime, it was to protect drug addicts from themselves and giving them clean needles and prevent spread of costly disease. They can shoot in a medically supervised environment. People can get high and be in safe hands and prevent overdoses and diseases from spreading. This is supposed to reduce medical cost overall while keeping our drug addicts safer.
That's the fantasy.
The reality is that by allowing needles to be taken offsite instead of mandating all needles administered at the facility, safe injection sites are merely a distribution center for free needles. Drug addicts just take the free needles and shoot up in a park nearby, with the money saved on needles to be used for more important stuff, like drugs. A person on fenthanyl won't think "Oh I just used this needle let's safely dispose of it" as a socialist would think, they go "#### I need my fix! I need money!" while he throws the needle in a playground and starts breaking into cars. He's a goddamn drug addict and high, he's not thinking logically.
It simply made it easier and cheaper to be a drug addict. They are all congregated to the area that gives them free stuff, and drug dealers go to where their clients go. Since drug addicts still need money for drugs, they commit crimes to get money for those drugs. More drug addicts, more drug dealers, more crimes, but hey let's look at this myopic study to show that it indirectly lowers medical costs in one area. And since this is congregated to one area, it's no longer a problem since the break in is not happening in my suburban home.
Safe injection sites as they are implemented today are more about a self pat on the back than they are about resolving social problems.
I am genuinely curious how much you think addicts were spending on needles per month prior to receiving free needle from safe injection sites? You seem to insinuate that free needles are a significant cost savings that is now being directed towards drugs.
Lets you put in a addicts shoes. You’re in a back alley with $20. Do you
a) Buy $20 worth of drugs and reuse a buddies needle
b) Buy $15 worth of drugs, walk to a drugstore and buy a $5 needle
c) Save your $20 until you can get $200. Go on Amazon.ca and bulk order 100 needles for $2 each. Whichever ones you don’t use yourself, you can sell to your health conscience addict buddies for $4.
I’d be willing to bet that b and c almost never happen.
In general, I am on the fence about safe injection sites and the current policies surrounding them, but the drug user cost savings from free needles is an almost inconsequential issue.
So what’s the solution? Should we get rid of self injection sites?
There is no easy solution for drug addiction. The failure of the war on drug should tell you that.
The first step is recognizing that drugs is a real social problem with psychological causes rather than saying it's ok to do drugs and provide free needles. We seem to be working on softening the symptoms and effects rather than the cause though.
These are people that have real problems and can be seen as victims, but those drug addicts have made a conscious choice with repercussions, and that choice victimizes others around them.
The whole idea of feeding and promoting drug addiction and simply saying "here's some free needles you can use here if you wish, but if you do not that's fine too" seems backwards thinking. They can and will still die of overdose as they have the choice not to shoot up in the safe injection site.
All the alternatives always seem to get a half baked response:
Can only use needles at the safe injection site - drug addicts will not come onsite
Start a needle exchange program - drug addicts will not keep their needles and discourages them from coming in
So the solution was to just give free needles? Who cares about neighborhoods affected, about the parks in the inner city, where children and pets do exist. People for the safe injection site likely have not stepped in the beltline in the past year for extended periods to see what it has become.
Safe injection sites, at least the way it is designed in Calgary with the total divide between province and city, propagate a problem rather than mitigate. Calling it a safe injection site is heavily misleading the pubic, as there is little injecting happening onsite as designed.
Ask someone : do you believe in a safe injection site and ask someone : do you believe in a free needle distribution site. One will get much more favourable answers.
Needles are a total biohazard, the province just simply shifted the risk from addicts on to unsuspecting victims walking their dog in the neighborhood.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
I am genuinely curious how much you think addicts were spending on needles per month prior to receiving free needle from safe injection sites? You seem to insinuate that free needles are a significant cost savings that is now being directed towards drugs.
Lets you put in a addicts shoes. You’re in a back alley with $20. Do you
a) Buy $20 worth of drugs and reuse a buddies needle
b) Buy $15 worth of drugs, walk to a drugstore and buy a $5 needle
c) Save your $20 until you can get $200. Go on Amazon.ca and bulk order 100 needles for $2 each. Whichever ones you don’t use yourself, you can sell to your health conscience addict buddies for $4.
I’d be willing to bet that b and c almost never happen.
In general, I am on the fence about safe injection sites and the current policies surrounding them, but the drug user cost savings from free needles is an almost inconsequential issue.
You pointed out the reason why the need for safe injections should exist, and yes a would be the top choice for most addicts. You are right the cost is negligible but that drug addicts will save by reusing a needle.
But at the same time you also inadvertently point out the danger.
Instead of one needle shared by 5 people (example), you have 10 needles used for each 5 person. Your needle rate just went from 1 to 50 on the street. That number grows exponentially over time.
Needles are also most likely to be thrown away if they are free vs if you have to pay 5$ each one. I can't find stats quickly on Calgary but here are some for Winnipeg
2 million syringes. How many of these get safely disposed? It's downplayed that only 1 to 2% make the streets, but that's still 20-40K needles using that downplayed number. And these are going to be concentrates to a few neighborhoods.
Quote:
"Going for a walk with my wife and my newborn baby, I've seen roughly in a one block radius, 50 to 70 needles at some point," said Denzel Constant, who helped with the cleanup on Furby Street in the city's West End.
"It makes me feel uneasy."
Quote:
I live on Victor and Ellice ave.
On a daily walk , I have run into up to 300 hundred needles in the back lane.
My neighbor on Agnes and Sargent have also picked up. 500 plus needles every week.
Meth users don't care about safe injection sites. I have seen the violence and they're screaming at me as I pass one injection house.
Safe injection sites can destroy once vibrant neighborhoods.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Well then let's put out some needle disposal boxes then. They used to have them down by the Drop In Shelter, but have been taken down long ago. Of course you are going to see used needles laying around, yeah it's gross and dangerous but what do you expect users to do with a used needle apart from use it again or toss it on the ground in the alley or park you just used whatever horrible drug in. If we made proper disposal available who knows how many would use them.
Well then let's put out some needle disposal boxes then. They used to have them down by the Drop In Shelter, but have been taken down long ago. Of course you are going to see used needles laying around, yeah it's gross and dangerous but what do you expect users to do with a used needle apart from use it again or toss it on the ground in the alley or park you just used whatever horrible drug in. If we made proper disposal available who knows how many would use them.
It would be a start if nothing else imo.
As I understand it, the problem with needle disposal boxes is that you either put in low volume ones, which require a lot of attention to maintain (nearly daily) or you put in large volume ones, which are almost constantly broken into/damaged from junkies trying to get at the needles inside. Either way, it's a lot of money thrown at the problem.
As I understand it, the problem with needle disposal boxes is that you either put in low volume ones, which require a lot of attention to maintain (nearly daily) or you put in large volume ones, which are almost constantly broken into/damaged from junkies trying to get at the needles inside. Either way, it's a lot of money thrown at the problem.
I would imagine the clean up costs and whatnot are also fairly expensive as well. I am curious what the numbers are on both sides so we could make an informed decision.
I do believe at the very least we should have bio disposal boxes outside of shelters and other known high drug use areas. I think it would go a long way to getting rid of some of that dangerous bio waste. I know there are plenty of social agencies that work with the folks on the street and I am sure if the city gave them the proper ppe to maintain a few bio boxes they would be more than happy to do that. Hell how many staff does the Drop-In employ? I'm sure they would gladly donate a couple staff and equipment to emptying those boxes of the city would put them back up.
I have always wondered why we don't just make our homeless shelters safe injection sites. They have the staff, they have the funding and the desire to do it. Let them. How many people do they save weekly from drug overdoses and bad drugs.
I do absolutely agree the way they have rolled out the safe injection sites are laughable. However I also believe they are vital and we need to find a way to make it work.
As someone living within the 250m buffer zone I can tell you that even those statistics are grossly under-reporting incidences. Unfortunately when this becomes the norm in your community you just learn to live with it.
This brings me to my question... At what point should I notify the police and how (I assume non-emergency line)? When I see 2 sketchy dudes exchanging stuff from their suitcases? When I actually see drugs being consumed? When its a situation I feel as though members of the public would feel uncomfortable?
I also have some frustrations with the increased police presence. While it helps, I feel as though they could do more then just go for bike rides down the bike lanes. It may give the public a perception of safety but the drug deals and consumption is going on in the backalleys and between buildings. Numerous times I've seen druggies hang out outside my condo gym hidden from street view, 10 feet away from where I'm working out.
