Safe Injection Sites approved for edm, Cgy announcement tba

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's way too easy to say this is the best we can do when you so clearly have a ton of users perpetually unable to break the cycle. The people working at these sites are doing the best they can but it doesn't in any way take the place of proper counselling and treatment. Do you actually think an addict who is there for one reason wants to hear about counselling or referrals at that time?

These people need to be seen and supported after the fact when they have a legitimate chance of rationally looking at the situation making the right decision. This is where social programs can and should be expanded and would make this program far more effective at actually getting those repeat users out of the SIS. Right now there is far too much focus on what's going on inside the doors and not enough emphasis on boosting the proactive treatment.

Is this some kind of demonstration as to how disingenuous you can be?

[stone hands]

that position is the equivalent of abstinence only sex ed

teenagers are gonna bang

likewise, homless people who have mental illness with no prospects, family or positive influences are gonna drug

you can rehabilitate some users sure but people in dire straights with mental illness are going to continue living on the streets, pissing on the sidewalk and taking hard drugs as they have since probably the dawn of time and will until greater society realizes not everyone can bootstrap themselves up from poverty

the only sensible solution there is until we can build housing and give these people real meaning in life is to stop them from dropping dead from overdoses, and unfortunately it has to go somewhere

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is no increased crime due to an SIS, there may be a change of the location of crime but the same number of junkies have to feed the same level of addiction how ever as a society we regulate that addiction, as SIS's are by necessity located where the junkies are already congregating I suspect it doesn't even change the location of crime to any great degree.

The SIS in Vancouver is on Hastings and Main, an area not renowned for its lack of crime before Insite moved in, the SIS has made no difference to anything there at all other than overdose rates and the HIV and Hep infection rate, these are down, as a taxpayer I am happy I don't have to pay for vast numbers of infected addicts to have very expensive treatment for easily avoidable diseases.

What sorta bugs me is that people can't seem to figure this part out. I agree there is no overall increase in crime in the city. Why everyone gets excited about this stat is beyond me because IMO it's completely useless.

However, people keep mixing this aspect with the increase of the crime in the surrounding community. Hastings and Main probably saw a negligible change in the overall demographic and crime shift before and after Insite. The communities directly around the SIS in Calgary went from a decently nice neighborhood close to the core to something equivalent perhaps to the demographic of the drop in centre soon after implementation. There was a far more obvious and jarring shift in crime and undesirable events in the surrounding communities immediately after the SIS opened. The surrounding communities tried to request CPS/Municipal/Provincial support to aid an incremental shift (or to deter concentration of the shift completely into the surrounding communities) but were ignored and left to deal with a skyrocketing shift in crime to the community on their own. Businesses have closed and many have immediately moved away as a direct result of the way the SIS was implemented.

It sucks that the surrounding community, which was open to accepting the SIS, was essentially required to bear a significantly heavier burden than the community was able to accept. On top of this, the community was required to receive this burden with ridicule and little support from those implementing the program. A dent in the quality of life was expected over the cratering of the quality of life in the community.

Metaphorically, it felt like someone with a home willing to offer their entire basement to help store things for the greater good of everyone. Instead, they ended up watching so much stuff aimlessly piled into the entire home that the end result resembled a hoarder's house. We're willing to help, but instead it feels like residents were considered a nuisance in establishing the greater good with the SIS a symbol of this treatment.

If the surrounding community is going to continue to be treated like a nuisance, then screw the rest of ya'll, get the SIS out of there. This would be unfortunate because it is a valuable resource to the city and the Chumir is a location that makes a ton of sense. I really don't think it's unreasonable for the community wanting to feel like an equal partner, rather than a beaten spouse in the relationship. The smallest of steps have been made towards appeasing the community, but no where close to what should have been done and what needs to be done to achieve this.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Numerous" people on record are not as reliable as purposely collected data. What's "numerous"? 2? 5? 10? How does that compare to hundreds of data points? Recognizing that subjective stories from people should be taken in the context of the bigger picture, and not as gospel, is neither dismissive or obtuse. It's being honest. People can tell all the stories they want of their experience, but it doesn't make them more valuable than anything else. Their value is measured appropriately. If the positive value of the SIS outweighs the negative value to the surrounding community, it's a win. But that's a tough measure because people have personal stakes in the game. Do I think one person's life being saved is worth your friend seeing a naked person? You better believe I do.

The SIS serve a valuable, positive purpose and will play a role in a long term solution. I think everyone would rather these sites be closed down in the long term because we've successfully moved these people off the streets and away from addiction. Who do you think you're arguing with on that?

My contention all along is that people like peter12 who blindly attack anyone who has a concern with the effect on the community as being a NIMBY are doing a huge disservice to the entire issue and creates unnecessary division towards the communities that merely want to see things run smoothly and safely. It's not simply an argument of the data says everything is peachy, which is most surely not the case at all.

We can all agree that with drugs come huge consequences and that is no different with a user on the street or in a SIS. I'm against the notion that this is a sustainable, successful method of dealing with the problem without further investment and support at a variety of levels. Nevertheless, calling this program a success is highly problematic no matter what way you look at it until everyone of these sites is no longer needed. As it stands now, I just don't see a pathway to ending the cycle of use and repeat for many of the patients.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

My contention all along is that people like peter12 who blindly attack anyone who has a concern with the effect on the community as being a NIMBY are doing a huge disservice to the entire issue and creates unnecessary division towards the communities that merely want to see things run smoothly and safely. It's not simply an argument of the data says everything is peachy, which is most surely not the case at all.

We can all agree that with drugs come huge consequences and that is no different with a user on the street or in a SIS. I'm against the notion that this is a sustainable, successful method of dealing with the problem without further investment and support at a variety of levels. Nevertheless, calling this program a success is highly problematic no matter what way you look at it until everyone of these sites is no longer needed. As it stands now, I just don't see a pathway to ending the cycle of use and repeat for many of the patients.

This is enormously disingenuous.

I have been very understanding that there is a local impact (typically 250 m) around the actual SIS. There is lots of mitigation that can and should be done.

Your premise that these are not successful methods of dealing with a problem at the street level is false and you maintain that falsehood by purposefully refusing to accept data or even expanding your very limited knowledge of what an SIS does to serve the community.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

My contention all along is that people like peter12 who blindly attack anyone who has a concern with the effect on the community as being a NIMBY are doing a huge disservice to the entire issue and creates unnecessary division towards the communities that merely want to see things run smoothly and safely. It's not simply an argument of the data says everything is peachy, which is most surely not the case at all.

We can all agree that with drugs come huge consequences and that is no different with a user on the street or in a SIS. I'm against the notion that this is a sustainable, successful method of dealing with the problem without further investment and support at a variety of levels. Nevertheless, calling this program a success is highly problematic no matter what way you look at it until everyone of these sites is no longer needed. As it stands now, I just don't see a pathway to ending the cycle of use and repeat for many of the patients.

I agree that it is difficult to asses the effectiveness of these programs while they are so new. That being said, it is impossible to asses the old program as anything but a total failure.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is this some kind of demonstration as to how disingenuous you can be?

I don't mind a poster like pepsi free holding me to account because I respect his thought process and typically unbiased point of view which moves discussion forward. I'm happy to debate topics here and even change my viewpoint on a variety of issues when someone is actually genuine and wants to put forth an argument.

Your little jabs are just weak and quite sad.

[Sliver]

Don't lose sight of the easy-to-understand problem here. These safe injection sites attract degenerates (as defined like so: having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.).

It's reasonable to not want these sites in your neighbourhood. It's clear they attract an undesirable element.

Nobody should be expected to take on that burden uncompensated and at risk to their person and property.

For those reasons, these are not good solutions and we should scrap the idea and close them down.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

What sorta bugs me is that people can't seem to figure this part out. I agree there is no overall increase in crime in the city. Why everyone gets excited about this stat is beyond me because IMO it's completely useless.

However, people keep mixing this aspect with the increase of the crime in the surrounding community. Hastings and Main probably saw a negligible change in the overall demographic and crime shift before and after Insite. The communities directly around the SIS in Calgary went from a decently nice neighborhood close to the core to something equivalent perhaps to the demographic of the drop in centre soon after implementation. There was a far more obvious and jarring shift in crime and undesirable events in the surrounding communities immediately after the SIS opened. The surrounding communities tried to request CPS/Municipal/Provincial support to aid an incremental shift (or to deter concentration of the shift completely into the surrounding communities) but were ignored and left to deal with a skyrocketing shift in crime to the community on their own. Businesses have closed and many have immediately moved away as a direct result of the way the SIS was implemented.

It sucks that the surrounding community, which was open to accepting the SIS, was essentially required to bear a significantly heavier burden than the community was able to accept. On top of this, the community was required to receive this burden with ridicule and little support from those implementing the program. A dent in the quality of life was expected over the cratering of the quality of life in the community.

Metaphorically, it felt like someone with a home willing to offer their entire basement to help store things for the greater good of everyone. Instead, they ended up watching so much stuff aimlessly piled into the entire home that the end result resembled a hoarder's house. We're willing to help, but instead it feels like residents were considered a nuisance in establishing the greater good with the SIS a symbol of this treatment.

If the surrounding community is going to continue to be treated like a nuisance, then screw the rest of ya'll, get the SIS out of there. This would be unfortunate because it is a valuable resource to the city and the Chumir is a location that makes a ton of sense. I really don't think it's unreasonable for the community wanting to feel like an equal partner, rather than a beaten spouse in the relationship. The smallest of steps have been made towards appeasing the community, but no where close to what should have been done and what needs to be done to achieve this.

This is the part that the naive ideologues have been missing entirely but addressing with the predictable:

Lol NIMBYs!! Who GAF?? They just dont care about the importance!!

I dont think the majority of people are ranting and raving about closing the facility or moving it or that it doesnt work so scrap it.

The problem is that you've now concentrated a troubled population.

"Oh! But crime isnt really increasing!"

Maybe. Maybe not. But its being focused and congregated in one spot, which people are genuinely, and rightly concerned about, because they kind of live in that spot.

But SISs are important so screw everything else!!

They are important. But the people living around them also have a right to live there safely.

They dont want to live in a war zone. That doesnt make them bad people, it just makes them 'people.'

But by all mean, continue with the eye-rolling, lolling and general contempt.

Because, well, its not in your back yard, its in theirs. So you dont have to care.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I don't mind a poster like pepsi free holding me to account because I respect his thought process and typically unbiased point of view which moves discussion forward. I'm happy to debate topics here and even change my viewpoint on a variety of issues when someone is actually genuine and wants to put forth an argument.

Your little jabs are just weak and quite sad.

I've already posted a fairly strong analysis of the data. That is enough, as far as I am concerned. If you aren't even willing to engage with the data beyond a basis anecdotal protest, then what else do we have to say to each other?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I agree that it is difficult to asses the effectiveness of these programs while they are so new. That being said, it is impossible to asses the old program as anything but a total failure.

Haha well put. That is certainly something that everyone can agree on.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What the hell do you think SIS's do? you have literally just described their model, they provide a safe injection site while offering counselling and referals to treatment, their whole raison d'être is to move addicts away from use into treatment

I'm genuinely curious - is there any information or stats regarding the efficacy of the counselling and referrals offered by SISs?

I realize their powers are limited and I can't think of a (reasonable) alternative, but I can't imagine the offer of counselling or referrals has a high acceptance rate...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I agree that it is difficult to asses the effectiveness of these programs while they are so new. That being said, it is impossible to asses the old program as anything but a total failure.

Which old programs? The six programs already in use around Alberta?

A recent report from the Alberta Community Council on HIV shows that these programs are enormously successful.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...bertas-Scs.pdf

No overdose deaths, decreasing needle debris, decreasing crime year over year, and increasing referrals from all sites.

Most posters in this thread are trading on a very narrow type of fear-mongering, and obviously, ignore the enormous pile of data that the SCS/SIS model is a tremendously successful front-line public health service. We should be investing more in these sites, expanding the number of treatment beds, and building accessible housing all across the province.

The ACCH report also found that there have been tens of thousands of referrals done through the sites to other addiction and treatment services, including counselling and methadone and suboxone therapy. Referrals also included treatment for sexually transmitted infections, housing support and wound care.

Three sites in Edmonton counted nearly 29,000 referrals combined. Calgary’s number was under 1,000, which Hayward said was a result of how data is collected. Lethbridge had more than 5,000 referrals compared to nearly 200 in Grande Prairie in March.

“The SCS is an essential contact point and pathway for vulnerable people who face many barriers to accessing better care,” said the report.

“There is no other service in Alberta that has the capacity to fill this void of over 10,000 addiction and treatment referrals.”

Cost savings range from $200,000 to $6 million annually per site, said the report, referencing healthcare costs and diverting emergency services.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ce-2017-report

[peter12]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'm genuinely curious - is there any information or stats regarding the efficacy of the counselling and referrals offered by SISs?

I realize their powers are limited and I can't think of a (reasonable) alternative, but I can't imagine the offer of counselling or referrals has a high acceptance rate...

Referrals are only given to those ready to seek support to end their addictions.

From the ACCH report linked above:

SCS play an essential role in supporting people who are ready for addiction and treatment services. Since opening, over 35,000 health and social referrals have been through the SCS, including over 10,000 to addiction and treatment services. Contrary to misperceptions about the
service, guiding people into recovery and support is a core part of the SCS mandate

You can see why I am so dismissive of some posters in this thread. A lot of their arguments are flat-out lies.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by peter12

Which old programs? The six programs already in use around Alberta?

A recent report from the Alberta Community Council on HIV shows that these programs are enormously successful.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...bertas-Scs.pdf

No overdose deaths, decreasing needle debris, decreasing crime year over year, and increasing referrals from all sites.

Most posters in this thread are trading on a very narrow type of fear-mongering, and obviously, ignore the enormous pile of data that the SCS/SIS model is a tremendously successful front-line public health service. We should be investing more in these sites, expanding the number of treatment beds, and building accessible housing all across the province.



https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ce-2017-report

No the old program of arresting, or otherwise ignoring people who inject drugs.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

No the old program of arresting, or otherwise ignoring people who inject drugs.

Agreed. Although to your earlier point, the new programs to have a lot of evidence demonstrating their efficacy.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'm genuinely curious - is there any information or stats regarding the efficacy of the counselling and referrals offered by SISs?

I realize their powers are limited and I can't think of a (reasonable) alternative, but I can't imagine the offer of counselling or referrals has a high acceptance rate...

SIS's referral rates are far higher than any other method, mostly as the addicts are in very, very, regular voluntary contact with them to a degree impossible in any other context.

The ability to get an addict to accept treatment essentially relies on being there offering treatment at the right wholly random moment, the day after their best friend died of an overdose or their partner left them etc.

The regular contact only an SIS offers is about the most effective model we have, it is massively successful in this aspect.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Don't lose sight of the easy-to-understand problem here. These safe injection sites attract degenerates (as defined like so: having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.).

It's reasonable to not want these sites in your neighbourhood. It's clear they attract an undesirable element.

Nobody should be expected to take on that burden uncompensated and at risk to their person and property.

For those reasons, these are not good solutions and we should scrap the idea and close them down.

Yes, I agree it is certainly reasonable to not want these sites in your neighborhood and people dismissing that argument because the stats say everything is fine is just downright silly.

There are many people in these crowds that have gone down unimaginable roads to end up where they are at so I do feel very badly for the majority of them. I am critical of the way we are dealing with the problem and labeling it a success, but it would be one of the tragedies of our generation if we simply turned our backs on those in need of help. One of these users could be your bother, sister, son or daughter and I'd want to know we all did better than just give them access to optional treatment and a place to get high. Not good enough.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by peter12

Agreed. Although to your earlier point, the new programs to have a lot of evidence demonstrating their efficacy.

I think that they is reasonable evidence, but I am a believer in the Longue Durée, what the long term outcomes of this will be is difficult to determine. Still, that is not a reason not to implement this program, since it appears to be the most effective one available.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

There are many people in these crowds that have gone down unimaginable roads to end up where they are at so I do feel very badly for the majority of them. I am critical of the way we are dealing with the problem and labeling it a success, but it would be one of the tragedies of our generation if we simply turned our backs on those in need of help. One of these users could be your bother, sister, son or daughter and I'd want to know we all did better than just give them access to optional treatment and a place to get high. Not good enough.

A place to get high. Really?