Safe Injection Sites approved for edm, Cgy announcement tba

[2Stonedbirds]

The guy who shot at the SAS in Lethbridge with a paintball gun has already showed remorse and admitted he was drunk.
We as a society should let him off the hook since he has substance abuse issues.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by peter12

NIMBYS are the most delightful people.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...site-1.5260753

Careful, don't hurt yourself when making that kind of stretch...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dude, come off it. Sometimes people arent NIMBYs as you so love the term, sometimes things are just not working out.

On one hand you extol the virtues of cooperation between the City, the Facility and the Neighborhood and then on the other immediately dismiss the validity of the concerns of residents as just labeling them NIMBYs.

First of all, at the moment I propose a peter12 exclusive moratorium on the term NIMBY for at least a month. You have to let your Teddy Bear go.

Secondly, I think its perfectly reasonable to expect residents to have valid issues and concerns about the Safe Injection Site without labeling them NIMBYs.

Its already in their backyard. Now they're trying to come up with compromises and solutions to make it easier to live with. Thats not unreasonable but some people are just closing their eyes, plugging their ears and having a tantrum while screaming 'NIMBYs' as though that somehow invalidates legitimate concerns.

It accurately describes your prejudiced view towards necessary social services.

There are plenty of data to show that these sites work, that there overall contribution to local crime is minimal, and that local residents are amply communicated and consulted with.

Now, what would you call people that want to move the site, joke about kiling them all, or barring that, actually conduct a drive-by shooting?

I think NIMBYs is actually a pretty polite term for those kinds of people.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by peter12

It accurately describes your prejudiced view towards necessary social services.

There are plenty of data to show that these sites work, that there overall contribution to local crime is minimal, and that local residents are amply communicated and consulted with.

Now, what would you call people that want to move the site, joke about kiling them all, or barring that, actually conduct a drive-by shooting?

I think NIMBYs is actually a pretty polite term for those kinds of people.

And it's so easy for you to toss out the word and pronounce judgment on people when it's also not in your backyard.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

And it's so easy for you to toss out the word and pronounce judgment on people when it's also not in your backyard.

I do not have much in the way of cultural prejudice towards necessary change - especially when opposing it would come at the expense of someone else's life.

[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.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've lived in neighbourhoods like this - some of them far worse so put your violin away.

There is nothing wrong with community members seeking to work with the facility, police, and the street-entrenched community to find solutions that help everyone. In fact, that is what often leads to success.

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, those solutions are untenable unless the facility is moved or put under such inconvenient restrictions that it would be impossible for staff to fulfill the facility's mandate.

As reports from both Edmonton and Calgary demonstrate, local impacts are minimal and still remain below historical trends. There may be some increased impact in Calgary within the 250 m zone around the Safe Injection Site, but almost none within the surrounding area.

Lethbridge seems to be facing an entirely different type of problem and I am not equipped with enough information to make any kind of judgement.

But when it comes to Calgary and Edmonton, the complaints are not worth the overall successful impact of the safe injection sites and complaintants would be better off working with city and provincial officials to mitigate impacts.

People with your attitude are exactly what escalate tension between facilities like a SIS and the surrounding community. Dismissing obvious impact not only belittles the people who live and work there, but also the people that respond and help keep the area as safe as possible. As I said, the Police data is absolutely irrelevant in these cases as they are making a heavy presence felt in order to curb the absolute madness that would otherwise be going on. Even so, I can assure you there is nothing minimal about the impact of these sites.

I have friends and co-workers that live in the areas that now come home to buildings with users naked in lobbies, pleasuring themselves in parking lots, being aggressively accosted and generally making life scary. Would you tell you family members to take a stroll through these areas by themselves in the evening? These people certainly rarely, if ever, had to deal with this kind of thing before the SIS opened. I guess everyone who lives there are just nonsensical NIMBY's though.

There is no benefit for anyone in pretending these sites are some sort of clean, glowing success as they are certainly not a long term solution and merely a band-aid on a bullet wound. It really is great that they have a 100% OD recovery rate and are saving lives, but what about the stories from EMS on how certain individuals have been recorded overdosing 50, 60, 70 times since some of the clinics opened in AB? Often multiple times on the same day/night? This is not a success in any measurable fashion.

I find it horrifying that we as a society accept that with no identifiable pathway for recovery, counselling and ultimately healing. Everyone can feel great that we have a safe place for it to all go down though, but properly building these programs out to include a pathway to recovery as part of the deal is the only real solution. Right now these people are merely suffering a death by 1000 cuts while the rest of society sits at a computer and applauds how successful it is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

As I said, the Police data is absolutely irrelevant in these cases as they are making a heavy presence felt in order to curb the absolute madness that would otherwise be going on. Even so, I can assure you there is nothing minimal about the impact of these sites.

I have friends and co-workers that live in the areas that now come home to buildings with users naked in lobbies, pleasuring themselves in parking lots and generally making life scary. Would you tell you family members to take a stroll through these areas by themselves in the evening? These people certainly never had to deal with this kind of thing before the SIS opened. I guess everyone who lives there are just nonsensical NIMBY's though.

There is no benefit for anyone in pretending these sites are some sort of clean, glowing success as they are certainly not a long term solution and merely a band-aid on a bullet wound. It really is great that they have a 100% OD recovery rate and are saving lives, but what about the stories from EMS on how certain individuals have been recorded overdosing 50, 60, 70 times since some of the clinics opened in AB? Often multiple times on the same day/night? This is not a success in any measurable fashion.

I find it horrifying that we as a society accept that with no identifiable pathway for recovery, counselling and ultimately healing. Everyone can feel great that we have a safe place for it to all go down though I guess.

This is hysterical.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is hysterical.

What is hysterical is that you have no response to anything except to lament NIMBY's and claim these centers are a glowing success because the stats say crime isn't up in the bubble essentially outside the SIS door.

It's a pity really.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

People with your attitude are exactly what escalate tension between facilities like a SIS and the surrounding community. Dismissing obvious impact not only belittles the people who live and work there, but also the people that respond and help keep the area as safe as possible. As I said, the Police data is absolutely irrelevant in these cases as they are making a heavy presence felt in order to curb the absolute madness that would otherwise be going on. Even so, I can assure you there is nothing minimal about the impact of these sites.

I have friends and co-workers that live in the areas that now come home to buildings with users naked in lobbies, pleasuring themselves in parking lots, being aggressively accosted and generally making life scary. Would you tell you family members to take a stroll through these areas by themselves in the evening? These people certainly rarely, if ever, had to deal with this kind of thing before the SIS opened. I guess everyone who lives there are just nonsensical NIMBY's though.

There is no benefit for anyone in pretending these sites are some sort of clean, glowing success as they are certainly not a long term solution and merely a band-aid on a bullet wound. It really is great that they have a 100% OD recovery rate and are saving lives, but what about the stories from EMS on how certain individuals have been recorded overdosing 50, 60, 70 times since some of the clinics opened in AB? Often multiple times on the same day/night? This is not a success in any measurable fashion.

I find it horrifying that we as a society accept that with no identifiable pathway for recovery, counselling and ultimately healing. Everyone can feel great that we have a safe place for it to all go down though, but properly building these programs out to include a pathway to recovery as part of the deal is the only real solution. Right now these people are merely suffering a death by 1000 cuts while the rest of society sits at a computer and applauds how successful it is.

No one is claiming SIS's are an answer to addiction, they are as you put it, a band aid on a bullet wound, but if you were shot wouldn't you want a sodding band aid on your wound? or would you prefer they crawl off and bleed to death somewhere you don't have to see them?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

What is hysterical is that you have no response to anything except to lament NIMBY's and claim these centers are a glowing success because the stats say crime isn't up in the bubble essentially outside the SIS door.

It's a pity really.

I analyzed the data that showed that most of what you said is incorrect and based on assumptions and second-hand stories from other hysterical people similar to yourself.

There is more to show that they are extremely successful at preventing death and disease. I assume you are in favour of those things as well.

They are also the best street-front resource to direct and refer people to counselling, treatment, and recovery.

The only real cure would be for the public purse to open up and spend a couple hundred million building safe, low-barrier housing on public land. I assume you are opposed to that as well.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

What is hysterical is that you have no response to anything except to lament NIMBY's and claim these centers are a glowing success because the stats say crime isn't up in the bubble essentially outside the SIS door.

It's a pity really.

...but they are a success. None of your reasons suggesting they aren't hold up, because that stuff happens regardless. The 100% of OD patients saved, though, that's a big deal.

What's hysterical is your subjective anecdotes "I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend..." etc, like that's a measurable reality, and throwing out police data and data from the AHS in favour of them.

You can't on one hand complain about people being dismissive of the negatives and yet be completely dismissive of the positives. Your attitude is no better, it doesn't do any more to move us forward than the people you claim are pretending everything is hunky dory.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No one is claiming SIS's are an answer to addiction, they are as you put it, a band aid on a bullet wound, but if you were shot wouldn't you want a sodding band aid on your wound? or would you prefer they crawl off and bleed to death somewhere you don't have to see them?

No, this is not a simple answer. Nobody wants anyone to go die in the gutter - generalizing the problem that way is just plain silly.

I would prefer that a user, can visit a SIS and then be moved toward a rehabilitation program and be treated by professionals and put on a path back to recovery. This SIS is just half of the solution to a problem that needs real treatment, not enabling.

As it stands now, repeat visitors are literally killing themselves slowly while many pat themselves on the back for merely putting off an inevitable OD for another day. I find that just as sad as letting someone go off to die like you say.

The only solution is treatment, counselling and recovery and there needs to be a change in this program to eventually get rid of SIS because people have been helped and effective treatment plans developed.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I would prefer that a user, can visit a SIS and then be moved toward a rehabilitation program and be treated by professionals and put on a path back to recovery. This SIS is just half of the solution to a problem that needs real treatment, not enabling.

And if they don't want to take that path? The choice already exists, but if you remove the choice then the people won't go to the SIS.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

No, this is not a simple answer. Nobody wants anyone to go die in the gutter - generalizing the problem that way is just plain silly.

I would prefer that a user, can visit a SIS and then be moved toward a rehabilitation program and be treated by professionals and put on a path back to recovery. This SIS is just half of the solution to a problem that needs real treatment, not enabling.

As it stands now, repeat visitors are literally killing themselves slowly while many pat themselves on the back for merely putting off an inevitable OD for another day. I find that just as sad as letting someone go off to die like you say.

The only solution is treatment, counselling and recovery and there needs to be a change in this program to eventually get rid of SIS because people have been helped and effective treatment plans developed.

Buddy. You just have no clue what you are talking about.

Where's that report from AHS showing that SIS are incredibly successful at referring people for treatment?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

...but they are a success. None of your reasons suggesting they aren't hold up, because that stuff happens regardless. The 100% of OD patients saved, though, that's a big deal.

What's hysterical is your subjective anecdotes "I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend..." etc, like that's a measurable reality, and throwing out police data and data from the AHS in favour of them.

You can't on one hand complain about people being dismissive of the negatives and yet be completely dismissive of the positives. Your attitude is no better, it doesn't do any more to move us forward than the people you claim are pretending everything is hunky dory.

It's not hard to find numerous people on record in the media saying the exact same thing that my friends and co-workers have so dismissing that is nothing more than being overtly obtuse.

I haven't dismissed any positives of the SIS either so maybe go re-read my posts. I'm completely in support of these sites. I do have a big problem with people minimizing the effects they have on the community and acting like they are a tangible solution to the problem.

I'd much rather have these sites closed down in the long term because, you know, we all care enough about what happens after these people leave the SIS that we've set up a sustainable pathway to help these addicts recover.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

No, this is not a simple answer. Nobody wants anyone to go die in the gutter - generalizing the problem that way is just plain silly.

I would prefer that a user, can visit a SIS and then be moved toward a rehabilitation program and be treated by professionals and put on a path back to recovery. This SIS is just half of the solution to a problem that needs real treatment, not enabling.

As it stands now, repeat visitors are literally killing themselves slowly while many pat themselves on the back for merely putting off an inevitable OD for another day. I find that just as sad as letting someone go off to die like you say.

The only solution is treatment, counselling and recovery and there needs to be a change in this program to eventually get rid of SIS because people have been helped and effective treatment plans developed.

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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's not hard to find numerous people on record in the media saying the exact same thing that my friends and co-workers have so dismissing that is nothing more than being overtly obtuse.

I haven't dismissed any positives of the SIS either so maybe go re-read my posts. I'm completely in support of these sites. I do have a big problem with people minimizing the effects they have on the community and acting like they are a tangible solution to the problem.

I'd much rather have these sites closed down in the long term because, you know, we all care enough about what happens after these people leave the SIS that we've set up a sustainable pathway to help these addicts recover.

Clueless.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's not hard to find numerous people on record in the media saying the exact same thing that my friends and co-workers have so dismissing that is nothing more than being overtly obtuse.

I haven't dismissed any positives of the SIS either so maybe go re-read my posts. I'm completely in support of these sites. I do have a big problem with people minimizing the effects they have on the community and acting like they are a tangible solution to the problem.

I'd much rather have these sites closed down in the long term because, you know, we all care enough about what happens after these people leave the SIS that we've set up a sustainable pathway to help these addicts recover.

"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?

[Hot_Flatus]

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

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.