Safe Injection Sites approved for edm, Cgy announcement tba

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

do you really want to encourage people to go around collecting infectious materials, designed to penetrate the human skin? Encouraging the most desperate, vulnerable just seems like you're setting yourself up for something really bad to happen.
Also, don't they hand them out for free? I can imagine the number of needles distributed would increase dramatically if you gave them away for free and paid money to get them back.

I wonder if it'd work if you limited the amount of needles that can be taken away each time you show up (ie: 2 needles per day). However, if you inject at the site (unlimited), it doesn't decrease the amount you can take away.

It'll theoretically reduce the needles going off site, encourage staying on site to inject, and the amount of needles taken off site to be merely flipped for money is reduced.

But it's possible it causes all sorts of other unintended consequences too.

[Wormius]

I thought the purpose of a safe injection site was that the drugs were used there, and any bio-hazardous materials are disposed of there. Just handing out clean needles doesn't seem to be the key purpose of the SIS.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I thought the purpose of a safe injection site was that the drugs were used there, and any bio-hazardous materials are disposed of there. Just handing out clean needles doesn't seem to be the key purpose of the SIS.

I think their free needle distribution program is actually a core pillar of their service.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I think their free needle distribution program is actually a core pillar of their service.

I thought places such as Insite were to provide a safe place to use drugs. If you are going to hand out needles there should be an expectation that the same number of needles are returned at a later date. At the very least somebody should be responsible for the safe disposal of needles. Or mark the needles so there is some idea where they are coming from. Maybe it’s not from the SIS necessarily and people are being upset over nothing. I mean, some of the areas were always areas of drug use. When I used to live near the Central Memorial Library, in the early 2000s, that was a pretty sketchy neighborhood. There were always remnants of drug paraphernalia.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I think their free needle distribution program is actually a core pillar of their service.

How can it be a safe injection site if people arent injecting on site?

[chemgear]

It's part of the package. I think San Fran hands out 5 million a year, BC gives out 15 (probably closer to 20) million needles, Edmonton 2-3 million. They only just started counting how many they had to pick up last year. Even at 7-10%, they're losing track of hundreds of thousands of needles in the area.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/cri...safe-injection

Last year, the service distributed a record 2.25 million syringes through its needle exchange van and exchange sites throughout the city. The goal, Taylor said, is to “flood the market” with clean needles, reducing the health impacts of intravenous drug use.

[Ped]

Maybe I'm still not getting this, but the article states it's a supervised injection site and then talks about going out and collecting used needles and how some users pick them off the street.


If they're letting them take the clean needles out, then it's not supervised injection, and they're just adding more needles to the problem, aren't they?

[81MC]

I still fail to understand how it is we can provide supplies for illicit drug use, but not medically necessary treatments.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Ped

Maybe I'm still not getting this, but the article states it's a supervised injection site and then talks about going out and collecting used needles and how some users pick them off the street.


If they're letting them take the clean needles out, then it's not supervised injection, and they're just adding more needles to the problem, aren't they?

It's both. If the person brings their illegal drugs there, they can shoot up there and if they od the staff'll get 'em back on their feet.

If they don't want to shoot up there, they are provided with needles to head off and shoot up wherever they want.

The site provides clean needles and a space to use if desired, but not required.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I still fail to understand how it is we can provide supplies for illicit drug use, but not medically necessary treatments.

Medically necessary treatments such as those required by HIV and Hepatitis patients? Preventing a person from getting HIV saves hundreds of thousands of dollars, if it just costs a couple cents for a clean syringe it's very likely that it's saving money in the long run, even with the facility operations.

And when it comes to these diseases, it's not just the single person but any future person who may come into fluid contact with that person, including people who may not have done anything 'wrong' (i.e. sexual relationship, incidental contact with fluid).

[Oling_Roachinen]

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...h-system-study

Researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto carried out an analysis that compared the projected costs of maintaining supervised injection sites over a period of 20 years with the potential savings to the health system in averted HIV and hepatitis C infections. The researchers’ estimates were conservative, as they did not include other infections associated with intravenous drug use and the costs involved in treating and hospitalizing patients suffering from overdoses.

Still, despite their conservative approach, the researchers found that one facility in Toronto would incur $33.1 million in direct operating expenses over 20 years, but save $42.7 million in health-care costs because of an anticipated reduction in HIV and hepatitis C infections. This represented a net savings of $9.6 million.

The researchers predicted that a single site Toronto would spare 164 people from contracting HIV (because they wouldn’t be using dirty needles) and prevent 459 hepatitis C infections

Certainly a lot to argue for or against safe injection sites, but if your argument is down to pure cost, you have to be in favour of them since they save us money.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Medically necessary treatments such as those required by HIV and Hepatitis patients? Preventing a person from getting HIV saves hundreds of thousands of dollars, if it just costs a couple cents for a clean syringe it's very likely that it's saving money in the long run, even with the facility operations.

And when it comes to these diseases, it's not just the single person but any future person who may come into fluid contact with that person, including people who may not have done anything 'wrong' (i.e. sexual relationship, incidental contact with fluid).

The real issue is how are the hospitals going to made do with their budgets being completed gutted by giving out free needles. I heard Foothills is going to have to close altogether, and the Children's Hospital is going to have to stop treating children.

[metallicat]

Regardless of how it makes many think, addicts using clean needles they get from safe injection sites is still better than them using dirty needles which leads to a whole lot more problems. Harm reduction, not harm elimination. These sites do a lot of good but there's a give and take.

[GGG]

Is the general public at risk from dirty needles or is it a fear not grounded in reality. In my head I picture kids in a park finding dirty needles and getting life alterning diseases. Does
This actually occur?

[metallicat]

Maybe, I don't know. I don't like taking my kid to parks that have actual sand, mostly because it's dirty and gets everywhere, but also because I guess I don't know what's buried (besides all the dog and cat poop). I doubt many people are planting dirty needles hoping kids get stabbed either.

[Cowboy89]

When it comes to safe injection sites, half way houses, etc, the NIMBY people get a bad rap. Sure there's an argument that those things need to go 'somewhere', but I can't fault people for not wanting them near their own property if they can help it.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...h-system-study


Certainly a lot to argue for or against safe injection sites, but if your argument is down to pure cost, you have to be in favour of them since they save us money.

Unfortunately, those types of studies are myopic and self fulfilling. Yes for one facility it looks like there are cost savings if looking at projected operating expenses versus projected savings, but what about the costs to other city services such as police services who have to increase presence at these locations? What about the businesses near these centres impacted? What about the residents who become victims to these centers? What about the workers at these who didn't sign up to work at what is now a gauntlet of harassment and crime. There is a far greater cost, both monetary and human cost, than these studies are prepared to show.

Handing out free needles yet not trying to fix the root problem or its causes, and letting the situation fester is a very socialist way of thinking. Drugs still cost money and most addicts do not have the funds to buy drugs, all this does is fuel the addiction and promotes crime in the area.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Last year, the service distributed a record 2.25 million syringes through its needle exchange van and exchange sites throughout the city. The goal, Taylor said, is to “flood the market” with clean needles, reducing the health impacts of intravenous drug use.

Unfortunately, they are also flooding inner city sidewalks and parks with used needle debris.

Maybe the solution is to have Safeworks be for supervised drug use only, and have needle dispensary points dispersed throughout the inner city - combined with a renewed focus on providing needle dropboxes.

[chemgear]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5332207/c...-calls-police/

A report from the Calgary Police Service released Wednesday showed a 50 per cent increase in calls to police from the public compared to the three-year average.

The report also shows a 35 per cent increase in disorder calls, a 246 per cent increase in drug-related calls, a 40 per cent increase in violent incidents and an 82 per cent increase in break and enters in the area between January and March of this year.

“The numbers, if you look at just pure percentages, we’re talking about a small dataset, so it looks like it’s quite high,” CPS Insp. Rob Davidson told Global News.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://globalnews.ca/news/5332207/c...-calls-police/

A report from the Calgary Police Service released Wednesday showed a 50 per cent increase in calls to police from the public compared to the three-year average.

The report also shows a 35 per cent increase in disorder calls, a 246 per cent increase in drug-related calls, a 40 per cent increase in violent incidents and an 82 per cent increase in break and enters in the area between January and March of this year.

“The numbers, if you look at just pure percentages, we’re talking about a small dataset, so it looks like it’s quite high,” CPS Insp. Rob Davidson told Global News.

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.