Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

No impact on neighbourhood crime from B.C. injection site, criminologist says

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 1:01 PM EDT 05/05/08

No room for ideology in Vancouver injection site debate, government criminologist argues ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jesse Winger from Calgary Southwest, Canada writes: 'The provincial government, Vancouver's mayor and the Vancouver police department have endorsed the program and numerous scientific studies have sung its praises.' G&M

    But PM Harper and his extreme social-conservative agenda want it eliminated? I thought they stood up for the little guy rather than fundamenatlist dogma.
  2. Antonio San from Canada writes: I think these places should even become families' sunday stroll... after all I have not shoot and feel that a government paid illegal drug trial is the perfect chance to try!
  3. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Why would such a place have an impact on crime ?

    Does a bar have such an impact ? Oh, wait . . . that's, uh, 'different'.
  4. V ADS from Canada writes: Common sense should dictate the fate of the 'safe injection site'.

    There is no such thing as 'safe' injections.

    People who support the site are aiding and abetting drug addiction.
  5. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: What Mr. Fletcher means when he says that science will not be the only determining factor is that the government is less interested in whether a program reduces harm to individuals and society and has a net financial benefit than it is in throwing a bone to its intolerant political base.

    Remember, this is the Mike Harris brand of Conservative government, which is primarily about dismantling government, and holding onto power until they have finished the wrecking job.
  6. ah sails from Canada writes: Safe injection sites may be best for our society and for the health, welfare and potential re-habilitation of chronic interveneous drug users but unfortunately does not meet with the morality of our right wing, born again Con government who must believe that these sinning heathens would be better off dead so they can go to a better place
  7. Liam Smith from Canada writes: Antonio San . . . what can I say about your phrase . . . I had to read it three times to make any sense of what you were saying. . . and after reading it a fourth time, it still makes no sense.

    Prohibition doesn't work. It's a fact. The addiction rate stays essentially the same whether the drugs are prohibited or not. All that prohibition does is create a criminal aspect to what is a health and social issue. Prohibition creates gangs. Simple.
  8. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: V ADS, unless you're from the Vancouver area you have no business telling us how to manage our issues. Most residents, politicians and police support its existance. From the Vancouver Health Authority: Results include: 'Insite is leading to increased uptake into detoxification programs and addiction treatment. (New England Journal of Medicine) Insite has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, rates of arrest for drug trafficking, assaults and robbery were similar after the facility’s opening, and rates of vehicle break-ins/theft declined significantly. (Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy) Insite has reduced the number of people injecting in public and the amount of injection-related litter in the downtown eastside. (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Insite is attracting the highest-risk users – those more likely to be vulnerable to HIV infection and overdose, and who were contributing to problems of public drug use and unsafe syringe disposal. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine) Insite has reduced overall rates of needle sharing in the community, and among those who used the supervised injection site for some, most or all of their injections, 70% were less likely to report syringe sharing. (The Lancet) Nearly one-third of Insite users received information relating to safer injecting practices. Those who received help injecting from fellow injection drug users on the streets were more than twice as likely to have received safer injecting education at Insite. (The International Journal of Drug Policy) Insite is not increasing rates of relapse among former drug users, nor is it a negative influence on those seeking to stop drug use. (British Medical Journal)' So your rant that: 'People who support the site are aiding and abetting drug addiction.' is completely false and unfounded. But hey, be a neocon, facts, shmacks, eh?
  9. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' V ADS from Canada writes: People who support the site are aiding and abetting drug addiction.'

    Glad to hear you categorizing the Vancouver police department in with that.

    Seriously though, its not like the junkies are going to stop doing drugs because they don't have clean needles, any more than teenagers are going to abstain from sex if they're prevented from getting access to birth control. Thinking they will is utterly naive.

    Its cheaper to provide them the needles than have to provide them with healthcare treatment for AIDS / hepatitis, and I don't see any way to legally deny them treatment for being addicts, so it seems like this is a smart program.
  10. Fake Name from Canada writes: 'ah sails from Canada writes: .... does not meet with the morality of our right wing, born again Con government who must believe that these sinning heathens would be better off dead so they can go to a better place'

    Slight correction - 'believe that these sinning heathens would be better off dead so they can go to a WORSE place'. I'm sure the theo-cons believe addiction is a quick road to eternal fire.

    But yeah, I think there is a bit of an undertone of some con's thinking that junkies deserve to get deadly diseases as punishment for their character flaws.
  11. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: From the article: 'Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher, secretary to the health minister, has said science alone will not be the only factor in the Tory government's decision whether to extend Insite funding.'

    What other factors will be applied to the decision? Well, beyond science there is personal preference (some might say prejudice), and a whole host of subjective values that have nothing to do with fact. So Mr Fletcher is basically saying the health minister won't let facts get in the way of his decision. Good to know.
  12. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    V ADS from Canada writes: Common sense should dictate the fate of the 'safe injection site'.

    That's the problem right there. If 'common sense' could solve problems like drug addiction there would be no drug problem. The truth is that many things behave contrary to common sense.

    The computer you are reading this on is made possible because smart people are able to study these things and realize that things are far more complex than common sense.
  13. Opinion in Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: What's the objective of this program. Is it to get people off drugs? If so what is their success rate? Or is the objective to let them continue in their habit?
  14. bruce weaver from Canada writes: I agree with the above. If the purpose is to perpetuate ones drug use, it should be closed. If it leads people to rehabilitation, then I support it.
  15. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: If this program has no negative impact on the neighbourhood, then it is indeed a good thing, especially if it is effective in aiding in a cure for addicts. I would rather talk to the actual neighbours, however, then believe findings from a so-called expert. That word tends to be overused.
  16. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: what are we doing to aid the incredibly, insanely stupid? i mean aside from providing them a thread to post on. something incredibly subtle like providing a 'safe' site for addicts.
    is it really pulling the hair in your collective noses that someone who has gotten themselves into a nightmare is being helped? is this really troubling you, bunkie?
    they've found 'lost' pictures from hiroshima. enjoy.
  17. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    Opinion in Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: What's the objective of this program?

    The objective is to save money by reducing Hepatitis and HIV infections among drug users. It is a harm reduction program and the studies say it is working and saving money.
  18. Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada writes: Let Insite stay open but don't use government money to run it. It wouldn't last long on private donations.
  19. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    'Mr. Boyd, a professor at Simon Fraser University, says the majority of local police, residents and businesses support expansion of the program and wider distribution of safe-injection sites in Vancouver.'

    Great news! When are Mr. Boyd and his family moving to the injection center neighborhood?
  20. george carlin from United States writes: Professor Boyd says he hopes whatever decision is made is based on science alone and not on “ideological leanings.”

    The good professor is, of course, referring to the ''ideological leanings'' of the opponents of the sites. But anybody who thinks the supporters do not have ideological leanings is, um, smoking something.
  21. D Le5 from Canada writes: V ADS from Canada : Good thing this isn't a 'safe' injection site but a SUPERVISED injection site.
    Damn those compassioate health care workers wanting to keep those that are going to use drugs alive until they can gain the strength to quit.
    Anyone with an addiction should be made to suffer until they are good like us huh.
    Medical professionals are smart enough to know that you cannot simply tell someone to stop having an addiction, nor will ignoring the addict until they quit decrease infection rates and overdoses.
    I am quit impressed that Neil Boyd was commissioned for this task. He is highly respected in his field and more qualified than some gov't contracted out 'experts' to do research on the issue.
  22. Iggy H from Toronto, Canada writes: aaaahh, Canada...you gotta love how we treat our socially unwanted. Dont quote and say something like: these people need help. No. They made their choice and now they have to deal with it without the expense of the hardworking taxpayer like yourself.
  23. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    george carlin from United States writes: But anybody who thinks the supporters do not have ideological leanings is, um, smoking something.

    The professor still has to publish a study with real data and evidence to support his view. He has to use standard methods that have been shown to produce verifiable results. He then has to defend his position against a team of people looking to poke holes in his research.

    It's called science.
  24. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: gardiner westbound - i'm happy to know you're NOT in my neighbourhood.
  25. Neo Conservative from http:hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.comsearch?q=junkie, Canada writes:
    pop quiz... 'your son/daughter/brother/sister comes home begging, pleading... for you to please go downtown and get them some heroin... or give them the percodan left over from the time you hurt your back... DO YOU DO IT?'
  26. Will Langford from Markham, Canada writes:
    Thats my Canada.Always help the criminals and hate the victims. Make it easy for the criminals.Hey why dont you start school visits and tell the kids the criminals are gonna always be treated better than the victims.Don't ever be a victim.What a bunch of gell brain liberals.
  27. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: isn't this a case of the 'criminal' and the 'victim' being the same person?
  28. Fake Name from Canada writes: 'Iggy H from Toronto, Canada writes: They made their choice and now they have to deal with it without the expense of the hardworking taxpayer like yourself.'

    What about the expense to the taxpayer of treating hobo's for hepatitis and AIDS? Providing them with clean needles is a massive cost savings over treating them for diseases, and I have yet to see a way of refusing addicts medical treatment of dirty-needle conditions that stem from their own bad choices.

    Of course, if we're going down that road of denying publicly-funded treatment to people who've caused their own problems, we'd have to likewise cut off healthcare funding to overweight white males who've eaten too many steaks and drank too much whiskey. I really can't see the Con's going for that, though - can you say 'grassroots support evapourates overnight'?
  29. Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Who cares about results? It's clear that ideology is the only reason INSITE is under attack. And so long as public policy is driven by the ideologues instead of rational planning, we can count on more violence and higher crime. (But at least we'll feel better about not having 'condoned' drug use.)
  30. al isinwonderland from Canada writes: Move these injection sites to places where neighborhoods and neighborhood businesses won't be destroyed by their existence. There seems to be to little regard for the innocent people who live in drug infested areas. I have no doubt that anyone who condones these places would not want to be so misfortunate as to have to live beside one! A safe injection site sounds nice but the dirty baggage that goes along with it is horrible. Put these sites somewhere in city hall if they are so great.
  31. B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: Well....I have visited Singapore and they seemed to solved the problem without too much scientific and religious analysis. You get caught using and selling drugs, then you are wiped out as fast as it takes to fill out the paperwork. That's how you fix the neighbourhood.
  32. Former 2 Time CIBC Staffer from North Vancouver, Canada writes: How could Insite have a negative impact on the Downtown East Side? How does one measure something like this? It would be like 'I've just passed wind in a pig barn... Does it smell worse than before?'
  33. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: Well....I have visited Singapore and they seemed to solved the problem

    Do you have a source for the claim that Singapore has solved its drug problem? Every study I have looked at has shown Singapore's rate of drug use is practically unchanged despite the draconian measures they have employed.
  34. Matthew Thiesen from Vancouver, Canada writes: Fake Name from Canada writes: Its cheaper to provide them the needles than have to provide them with healthcare treatment for AIDS / hepatitis, and I don't see any way to legally deny them treatment for being addicts, so it seems like this is a smart program. -------------- Fake Name, you are making a very good observation. What i also want people to see is that, some like Diabetics, didn't volunteer for a -high- when they were given their disease. Still, we don't give them free needles. If a Diabetic goes into shock, they get sent to the hospital. It is the same cost analysis. If the program is allowed to continue, i think we need to expect rehabilitation as well. I understand that the program is running rehab above the safe-injection site. What i would like to see is relocation (regardless of family). Get these people out of harm's way. Get them to a place far away so that they have a better chance of cleaning up for good. Starts with living conditions people. AND, making social housing in one of the most valuable land areas isn't the answer. More so, for all those against this program I think you need to realise the major positive gains we receive. AIDS is contained in an effective way, as are other diseases. As for the prevetion of overdose deaths, this is good but we all make our own path. If one person can pull themselves up, so can the rest.
  35. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: b. siragausa - so that's how they 'solve' a problem that is self-inflicted?
    how do alcoholics fare? don't tell me. firing sqaud, right?
    don't pick up any bad habits and go to singapore. unless it's a one-way ticket.
  36. W ho from Canada writes: Prejudice
  37. W ho from Canada writes: Only the first word of Comment appeared !? I submitted 'Prejudice
  38. W ho from Canada writes: ...
  39. Matt Toma from Vancouver, Canada writes: Milos Gravity from Canada writes: Oh so a filthy back alley isn't good enough anymore? Pampered crackheads. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject is evident in the abosulte uselessness of your comment. With this lack of intellectual capacity, I wouldnt have the stones to post under my real name either. Those of us that actually put though into the process realize that a safe injecftion site reduces the spread of infectious diseaseas, faciliatates the movement of addicts into treatment, reduces the lives lost to overdose, and significantly reduces the cost to the public of said activities. What the moral self righteous brigade fails to understand is that the social costs of injection drug use dont go away if you just leave these people to die in alleys. Police, EMS, coronoer services, and the unchecked spread of infectious diseases require significant financial resources. Shut down the injection site, and the public can go back to paying the full costs of all those activities - and since that approach hasnt worked this century, what those against the injection site are really arguing is that they woud rather spend more taxpayer dollars on a solution that doesnt work as opposed to one that does, because they cant get past their prejudices. One would think that is ironic for conservatives, the self described guardians of the public purse, but my experience is that conservatives dont care how much money they waste when it comes to protecting their own prejudices.
  40. Douglas Freestone from Calgary, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada - Great post. Thanks for the information - this is exactly what I was inquiring about last week before people began attacking me. I was beginning to think that in the absence of facts, ideology was the only thing that was driving this issue (from both sides). The facts that you provided, if true, are exactly what is needed to determine whether INSITE is a viable option that needs to be supported by government. Though I do have an ideological problem with assisting those that are essentially breaking the law (and often break laws in order to exist with their addiction), facts and studies that prove that this is worthwhile must supersede ideology (my opinion).
  41. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: al isinwonderland did you not read the article? Seriously dude, RTFA before commenting! Is my area had a drug use problem as the DTES. I would want a clinic that helps reduce 'baggage' just like INSITE has done.

    Also see my post of 12:07.

    B. Siragusa, forunately for both you and I we have a little concept called 'Human Rights' in Canada, which are backed up by something called a 'Charter of Rights'. Today we wipe out drug addicts, tomorrow we wipe out the unemployeed, the next homosexuals, etc.

    Thanks but no thanks. But I'm sure a lot of Neocon posters orgasmed when reading your post.
  42. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Maybe they don't want to steal from their own neighborhood, so they take the train to the burbs and steal?
  43. W ho from Canada writes: What's the point of submitting a Comment if only one word appears?
  44. Pete H from Canada writes: Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Who cares about results? It's clear that ideology is the only reason INSITE is under attack. And so long as public policy is driven by the ideologues instead of rational planning, we can count on more violence and higher crime. (But at least we'll feel better about not having 'condoned' drug use.)
    The current studies that apparently present a favourable outcome for INSITE were commissioned by the current government, the apparent recepient of you're lable ideologues. Let me guess, when the decision to come down is to continue the site, it will be because of public pressure from non-ideologues like you.
  45. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: anyone aware the profession with the highest drug use rate? doctors. funny, most people seem to think it's some 'scum' that's causing all these problems. some of this 'scum' started life as fine, upstanding citizens who got caught up in this terrible affliction. addiction.
  46. B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: In response to the The Religious Left from Canada : They (Singapore)have most certainly solved the problem of repeat offenders.
  47. Toby Maloney from Canada writes: Other considerations = the Conservatives need the image of a dirty, car-stealing drug addict to sell their fake law and order agenda.
  48. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: In response to the The Religious Left from Canada : They (Singapore)have most certainly solved the problem of repeat offenders.

    Nice dodge. Except repeat drug traffickers aren't really the problem. Drug traffickers don't directly affect the general population. The problem is the cost associated with addicts. The social, criminal and medical costs of drug addiction is the problem and if you aren't addressing that you aren't solving the problem.

    I don't know about you, but I think we should pursue a drug policy that addresses the problems.
  49. Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: While we're at it, why not open 'safe pot/hash smoking' locations, where one can toke until their heart's content without running afoul of the law?

    http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/

    Any examples out there of communities where safe injection sites really do work? Statistics?

    Or, are these programs just enabling addicts, giving a perseption that drug use & abuse is socially acceptable? Telling youth to 'Say No to Drugs', then having publicly funded drug use sites.
  50. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: Well....I have visited Singapore and they seemed to solved the problem without too much scientific and religious analysis.'

    Yeah, and remind me ... what's the punishment for littering there? Twenty lashes, or fifty?

    We don't need to import the 'solutions' of fascist barbarians like that governnment, thank you very much.
  51. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: Any examples out there of communities where safe injection sites really do work? Statistics?

    You mean other than Insite in Vancouver? If you want the stats, look up the studies.
  52. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: People commenting on Insite have to realize how it fits into the bigger picture:

    http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/

    Insite is part of the Harm Reduction and to a limited extent the Treatment Pillars as should be judged according to these mandates.
  53. anonymous contributor from Canada writes: regina filange - safe sites for pot/hash users? it's generally called a 'livingroom.'

    thanks for a side buster. initially i thought you were joking.
    maybe you meant potash? it doesn't roll too good and it just won't light.
  54. Unknown User! from Toronto, Canada writes: What about the expense to the taxpayer of treating hobo's for hepatitis and AIDS? Providing them with clean needles is a massive cost savings over treating them for diseases, and I have yet to see a way of refusing addicts medical treatment of dirty-needle conditions that stem from their own bad choices.

    Of course, if we're going down that road of denying publicly-funded treatment to people who've caused their own problems, we'd have to likewise cut off healthcare funding to overweight white males who've eaten too many steaks and drank too much whiskey. I really can't see the Con's going for that, though - can you say 'grassroots support evapourates overnight'?

    exactly! Wow, thanks for agreeing.
  55. Fake Name from Canada writes: Matthiew Thiesen - mandatory rehab is a good concept, and it probably should replace prison for some cases of addicts. It will only work for those who really want to try, but it makes more sense than putting them in with more experienced criminals who will just swap tips on how to commit bigger crimes to fund more drugs.

    And yes, we should be funding diabetics for expenses to keep their condition under control, if that's cheaper than having them not do anything and end up in hospital.
  56. V ADS from Canada writes: I have every right to criticize the 'safe injection site' because I live in Vancouver and know darn well how much this city has deteriorated over the past 30 years because of rampant drug abuse.

    I don't know a single person in Vancouver who hasn't been the victim of drug crime. Every single person in my family has, including a young neice traumatized by a gas-station robbery.

    Vancouver is the bank robbery capital of Canada, driven by drug addicts. Who cares about the traumatized tellers? Who cares about shop owners have to sweep up dirty needles in front of their businesses every day? Not the do-gooders, that's for sure. They're too busy aiding and abetting drug crime to care about its victims.
  57. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: While we're at it, why not open 'safe pot/hash smoking' locations, where one can toke until their heart's content without running afoul of the law?

    We have those too. But the negative effects of Pot are in the smoke as its 'non injectable'. So to reduce that harm, there are vapour lounges set up by private businesses. Vapourizers release the THC without emitting smoke.
  58. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: V ADS, I have not been a victim of a drug crime. Neither has any member of my family, I too live in the area.
  59. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: V ADS: 'Vancouver is the bank robbery capital of Canada, driven by drug addicts. Who cares about the traumatized tellers? Who cares about shop owners have to sweep up dirty needles in front of their businesses every day? Not the do-gooders, that's for sure. They're too busy aiding and abetting drug crime to care about its victims.'

    Don't you see, by keeping the needles off the street and in the safe injection sites, they reduce the number of people who have to clean them up. I've volunteered in the DTES for several years now and I have to say it's better there than it was before Insite. There's still crime but there's less needles for sure.

    What do you think, that heroin use is going to just stop if they close Insite? The research has shown that more people are being diverted into treatment programs than without the site. It's obviously helping. Yes, it certainly is a drug crime, I don't deny that, but the costs to our society in health expense, the criminal justice system and social programs is so high that having a government sanctioned safe injection site is the best solution. That's what the research is consistently showing.
  60. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: B to the A to the R to the T: I also agree, I've lived in the DTES for a while now, the only time I have ever been assaulted was by a drunk frat boy outside the Cambie. They're the real criminals in the neighbourhood.

    You can see them chasing the homeless around too, it's disgusting.
  61. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    V ADS from Canada writes: I have every right to criticize the 'safe injection site' because I live in Vancouver and know darn well how much this city has deteriorated over the past 30 years because of rampant drug abuse.

    No one is questioning your right to criticize. People are questioning your logic. If drugs are such a problem, it seems odd that you would oppose a program that has been shown to both help the drug problem and save money.

    Who cares about the victims of drug crime? Probably the people actively working toward a solution to the problem. when you have a better solution than 'common sense' you can question the logic of this program.
  62. al isinwonderland from Canada writes: Hey B.A.R.T.- What makes you think I didn't read the article (no need to rude by the way) The article starts off with 'Vancouver's supervised injection site has had no significant impact on crime in the neighborhood' I presume that this comment may mean that it did not reduce crime. That the neighborhood is no safer than it was before. I live in South Parkdale in Toronto and I hate to see neighborhoods infested with the 'baggage' associated with crackheads and junkies and believe that if they injection sites are the solution they should be located in public places to get those addicts out of the drug ghettos. How about giving the neighborhoods these people have destroyed the chance at rehabilitation.
  63. Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: Never heard of vapour lounges - learned something new today!

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4628.html
  64. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes: QUIT THE INFIGHTING.......so obvious in this forum. I have been around the drugs scene since the 1930s(back then in Scotland) Sure there were drugs around but the problems we have today with gangs(and a Civil War in Mexico?) in North America, were unknown. Even during WW11 the drug scene was a source of Vaudeville or Bawdy Ballad humour........ Remember singing round the Officer's mess piano 'COCAINE BILL AND MORPHINE SUE'?.....Why, it even made it into the Canadian Army song book(of which I have a copy). The answer to our problems is OBVIOUS.....Legalize and regulate... Supply standard dosage and purity at a reasonable price to all and sundry........ BUT ANYBODY WHO ENDANGERS OTHERS , WHILE 'UNDER THE INFLUENCE'OF A DRUG GETS AN AUTOMATIC 10 YEARS SENTENCE' REGARDLESS AS TO WHETHER THE DRUG WAS PRESCRIBED OR NOT!!! Somebody observed that DOCTORS are particularly prone to be addicts, which fact is true............Likewise in the military there appears to be a tendency to alcoholism in Cooks or Padres, which I find rather curious........perhaps all explained by easy and anonymous access. Control in the end comes down NOT TO LAWS but by Societal Acceptance as to where the limits should be and this is transmitted to kids from infancy on up. Do we actually TELL KIDS not to stab their friends and playmates? No it is something they absorb from society by simple observation.
  65. Liberals Steal from normal hardworking, Canada writes: Not including, of course, the crime of buying the drugs to bring to the site and the crime that most likely paid for them. But other than that , hey, - A government sponsored shooting gallery is a fantastic role for our governments - extend addictions more comfortably, that's what the state's role should be! Sure.
  66. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Best comment of the day Former 2.

    When you are in a cess pool does one more lump make any difference.

    If it is cost effective it stays, if not it goes, real simple. Have little or no sympathy for the druggies who voluntarily are in their position.

    I have all the sympathy in the world for the kids they have, who are the true victims of their habit. Druggies should be sterilized until they are proven clean.
  67. Liberals Steal from normal hardworking, Canada writes: al isinwonderland 'I live in South Parkdale in Toronto and I hate to see neighborhoods infested with the 'baggage' associated with crackheads and junkies and believe that if they injection sites are the solution they should be located in public places to get those addicts out of the drug ghettos. How about giving the neighborhoods these people have destroyed the chance at rehabilitation.'

    Exactly.

    IF someone wanted to offer this service in your city, a suggested locale would be an ATCO trailer at the farthest point across all the paved areas in Exhibiton park closest to the water. Then they would be separated by about 2000 meters of pavement from any neighborhoods at all. Same place for the Stroll. 2 for 1.
  68. Liberals Steal from normal hardworking, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T 'But the negative effects of Pot are in the smoke'

    I'll tell that to my wake-and-bake friend who has been uselessly stoned on the same couch for 30 years now. If it wasn't for the smoke he'd have had a life, according to you.
  69. Randy D from Canada writes: Diabetcs gotta pay for their own supplies and cigarette smokers gotta go hide in the weeds but druggies are treated like government workers--is there any hope. Nope dope.
  70. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Wow, this criminologist should have his head checked. He claims there is a 'modest decrease' in crime in the neighbourhood where InSite is located? I can't imagine why, given that InSite creates a small area where illegal acts can be done legally, with government funding and medical assistance. What's shocking is the fact that it is only a 'modest' decrease.

    The argument about making the decision based on science and not ideology is a red herring argument. The whole issue is an ideological one; the science only plays a supportive role in determining whether proponents of InSite are correct about its impact. Science can have no say in whether the Government deems it ethical, moral, or even legal to have a Government-sanctioned site where illegal acts can be done legally.

    To those arguing that science should dictate the Government's position -- what about the fact that abstinence is the best harm reduction tool available in terms of minimizing the damage of STD's, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, etc...? Should science's conclusion's be used to justify a ban on sex? Of course the answer here is no, but it serves as an illustration that science can not determine the morality / ethics of a choice. Cold-hard science was also used to justify the sterilization of those who were mentally retarded, likely because those who made decisions based them on science alone and not on ethics or morality.

    The real issue here is that the scientists disagree with the ideological viewpoint of the Government, but are either unaware of this or are hoping that we are unaware of it.
  71. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: LOL. My brother, a cigarette smoker, and I were just in Vancouver this past weekend. Apparently, you aren't allowed to smoke a cigarette in a bar's ventilated smoking room anymore, but you can go indoors and stick a needle in your neck for heroine. In fact, one can arrested charged for smoking in a bar, but it is okay to smoke crack on the sidelwalks.
  72. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Mr. Harper: Science has been consistent in saying that this site is working. There is no negative impact on crime. Drug litter has been reduced. There have been no significant negative incidents at the clinic, and incidence of hypodermic transmission of AIDS and Hep C are being reduced by the use of clean needles so less people end up in the medicare system by overdose or infection. It is saving money and saving lives. Please continue to use my tax dollars on this sensible solution.
  73. Liberals Steal from normal hardworking, Canada writes: Alex MacLean from Toronto, of course, "Please continue to use my tax dollars on this sensible solution. "

    Alex please send your own private donation from your after tax income, thanks. That way my tax money won't be used to extend addiction and increase harm.

    Thanks.
  74. Grant Bowen from a higher place, Canada writes: B. Siragusa from Toronto, Canada writes: Well....I have visited Singapore and they seemed to solved the problem without too much scientific and religious analysis. You get caught using and selling drugs, then you are wiped out as fast as it takes to fill out the paperwork. That's how you fix the neighbourhood.
    ----------
    Singapore's success rate with addiction is still poor.
    "Drug addiction continues to be a serious problem among the poor and low educated in Singapore despite harsh anti-drugs laws.
    "
    http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=960
  75. James Gill from Vancouver, Canada writes: There are some simple public health issues here.

    IV drug use will occur, with or without the presence of Insite. Without Insite, all of the drug use that is happening off the street, with clean needles, will return to the street, and likely with reused or shared needles.

    Every incidence of unsafe injection practices increases the risk of blood borne disease, and we are on the hook for the treatment costs. I would rather that the public health system pay for the smaller cost of running Insite, than the larger cost of treatment for people infected through unsafe injection practices.

    I would happily see the public health system bear the costs of rehabilitation programs entered into as a result of the contact made through Insite.

    Would I move into the neighborhood? Well, I would be significantly more likely to move into the DTES with facilities like Insite, than the DTES without them. The DTES is still a troubled community, but it is better off for the presence of Insite and the people who work there.
  76. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Liberals Steal: No. I do not want to send a private donation. My taxes are paid to fund health care for everyone, not just people you approve of. That's why we pay taxes. You don't get to ideologically back every single tax measure. I don't like buying meals for murderers, but it happens any way because, in a democratic society, it should. Those who hate taxes/the state are welcome to try out Sudan, where it is almost non-existent. I think you'll come running back to the welfare state.
  77. Life Insurance Bribe from Canada writes: We need people making decisions based on facts & science.... not based on ideology or a "gut sense" of things.

    Get rid of these 19th century losers.
  78. V ADS from Canada writes: It may be "cheaper" to give people free needles and a place to shoot up than to treat them for hepatitis and AIDS, but the so-called "cure" (drugs) is far worse than either of these diseases (AIDS or hepatitis).

    Crack and heroin will kill most of these people long before AIDS or hepatitis ever will. These drugs will destroy their health and rob their souls. A possessed addict is already half-dead to the world. Society has no business helping them continue on that tragic journey.
  79. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Liberals Steal: you don't have the guts to put your name or place, but you make fun of me writing from Toronto? Hypocrite.
  80. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: So the local law officials and community in addition to the province support the site, but the CPC says...

    "...science alone will not be the only factor in the Tory government's decision whether to extend Insite funding...."

    So what pray tell is the decision being based on if not the opinions of the community, province and evaluating scientists?
  81. Everythings Statistical from Canada, Canada writes: (this is just one piece of the puzzle, one factor in the consideration)... It is hard to place a 'cost' on the healing (curing, rehabilitation) of a person. If such a facility leads 1 MORE person in 10 to regaining a healthy, enriched, contributing place in society, but not the other 9, was it worth the effort/money we spent on all 10 as a whole? If the facility pays for itself (and then some) in terms of law enforcement and healthcare, the answer (cold hard mathematics) is obviously YES. That is assuming, of course, that you value the quality of life of one human being. It may be true that the facility doesn't help most addicts. But sure as he11, I would like my community to be part of saving those few that want it and are willing to try. The fact that its at least cost-neutral makes this a no-brainer. Such a facility seems ironic, even to my own values, but I am objective enough to try to judge it objectively. If all three of my healthcare workers, the relevant scientists and my law enforcement have consensus on a matter that they are most impacted by, I will back their recommendations over ANY politicians ANY day.
  82. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: V ADS, addiction is not 100% fatal It is NOT worst than HEP and AIDS, you're absurd. AIDs is 100% fatal. Reducing Harm to addicts and those they can unknowningly infect is what INSITE is doing. Helping people get treatment is another thing that INSITE is doing.

    Take off your blinders.
  83. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Liberals Steal from normal hardworking, Canada writes: "... please send your own private donation from your after tax income, thanks. That way my tax money won't be used to extend addiction and increase harm..."

    (cue: eye roll)

    My guess is that I pay more in taxes than you made last year kiddo, so drop the pretense already.

    Secondly, you're making up facts to suit your opinion which I find sick given how little this affects your life versus the addicts and community.

    The scientists doing the studies supporting this site have actual facts and methodologies others can review. You have squat.

    Come one now LS, try injecting a little honesty, human empathy and a wee bit of perspective every now and then huh?
  84. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: V ADS from Canada writes: ... heroin will kill most of these people long before AIDS or hepatitis ever will. These drugs will destroy their health and rob their souls. A possessed addict is already half-dead to the world. Society has no business helping them continue on that tragic journey. -- V ADS -- actually not. You use many loaded words and phrases that don't mean a thing and are indicative of flawed reasoning. A heroin addict can live a "normal" life. The lifestyle (whoring, stealing, trafficking, using dirty needles, etc.) decreases an addict's life span and dimishes their integration within society. Phony religious doctrine does a pretty good job of robbing someone's soul -- we don't outlaw that. If one truly cared about an addict's "soul", then surely one has a duty to help them in whatever way works best for the addict and society. Our uncaring society does a pretty good job of ensuring that an addict has a "tragic journey" in life. Do you think that more of the same thing, i.e. prohibition -- our current drug "control" paradigm, will lead to better outcomes for the addict and society? If so, please direct me to a country/society that has successfully managed drug control and addiction through prohibition. I'm willing to wager a considerable sum of money that you won't find one.
  85. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Everythings Statistical from Canada, Canada writes: "...It may be true that the facility doesn't help most addicts. But sure as hell, I would like my community to be part of saving those few that want it and are willing to try. The fact that its at least cost-neutral makes this a no-brainer. Such a facility seems ironic, even to my own values, but I am objective enough to try to judge it objectively..."

    Which is all anybody can reasonably ask of anyone. It is precisely such difficult decisions defying convention that reveal our character as people.

    I agree with your logic. If it saves at least as much as it costs and is demonstrably useful to society at large AND the individual, no one should be using subjective morality to forestall it.
  86. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: V ADS from Canada writes: "...A possessed addict is already half-dead to the world. Society has no business helping them continue on that tragic journey..."

    Who is your brother V ADS?
  87. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: K Ordos from Canada writes: Keep the safe injection sites, just replace the free heroin with free euthanol. Problem solved real quick.
    As taxpayers we shouldn't tolerate druggies getting their fix on drugs and facilities paid for with money that's better spent elsewhere. Safe houses for battered and abused women, for example. We, the people have a voice and we really should be exercising it more often. Help the people who really need help, not the degenerate druggies.

    K Ordos -- it sounds like you could use some help -- counselling murder -- that's pretty bad.
  88. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: ah sails from Canada writes: "Safe injection sites may be best for our society and for the health, welfare and potential re-habilitation of chronic intraveneous drug users..."

    However, if the sites don't reduce crime, then what good are they doing for Society?

    Just benefiting some evil scumbag criminal needle junkies isn't in itself something into which public money should be poured.
  89. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: V ADS: " I have every right to criticize the 'safe injection site' because I live in Vancouver and know darn well how much this city has deteriorated over the past 30 years because of rampant drug abuse."
    ==============================================
    V ADS, I suggest you get to work on your reading and reasoning skills. I'm from Vancouver, I've had my car broken into a dozen times out there, I know what it's like. But you have to ask: is Insite making the problem BETTER or WORSE? All studies, all statistics show that it is making the problem better, overall: fewer AIDS cases (that costs a few bucks!), bringing some really messed up people in contact with the medical establishment in a non-judgmental way so they can get themselves onto a treatment program, etc. The drug problem was not caused by Insite and will not go away if Insite is closed... you are insane if you think otherwise.
  90. V ADS from Canada writes: Life is 100% fatal, but setting aside that obvious fact, hepatitis can be treated and AIDS is not the death sentence it once was.

    Addiction is far worse than hepatitis or AIDS or most other diseases because a person's life is no longer his own. An addicted person is a posessed person who cares about little except getting the next fix.

    There is no quality and precious little humanity in such a life.

    An addict has one choice -- to quit or die -- and most know it. Society should only help them quit, and never aid and abet drug addiction.
  91. Simply Red from Canada writes: Any rational discussion of the issue indicates the Conservative approach to this site is wrong-headed.
    The Conservatives won't discuss this on the merits of the case; they want to introduce hysteria...
    We wouldn't want to bring rationality and science into any discussions, after all, would we?
    Forward unto the Rapture!
  92. Pickman's Modem from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: However, if the sites don't reduce crime, then what good are they doing for Society? Just benefiting some evil scumbag criminal needle junkies isn't in itself something into which public money should be poured.

    ------------------------------------

    Are you being willfully obtuse? As was mentioned in a similar thread on Friday, Insite is exists to try and reduce the spread of Hep C, HIV in our communities. It also means fewer needles on the streets -- which can only be a good thing. Finally, Insite also has some people on site to counsel people on strategies for getting clean -- if they are interested.

    If you don't like it, then I guess that's your business. However, if we are going to rationally discuss how effective Insite has been at meeting it's mandate; then we need to look at the studies -- not just "gut-feelings" about scumbags. What's wrong with evidence-based decision making?
  93. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: V ADS, You're comments are untrue and border on the absurd. AIDS Kills, HEP kills. While a year old this stat can be meaningful:

    "There has been no overdose-related deaths at Insite since its opening. Sixty per cent of overdoses within Insite were successfully managed by facility staff without an ambulance call."

    Seems to me they're saving lives, while you insist on kicking people while they're down.

    Perhaps drug use prevention measures and treatment of addicts before they make it to the DTES would reduce drug crime. But studies show that closing INSITE will not have this effect.
  94. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: K Ordos from Canada writes: "...Keep the safe injection sites, just replace the free heroin with free euthanol. Problem solved real quick..."

    If it wasn't already self evident here's some additional proof you don't know what you're talking about.

    The addicts have to provide their own heroin from whatever blackmarket source they have.