Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

An illogical line

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:14 PM EST 11/08/08

The federal government's opposition to Insite, Vancouver's supervised-injection facility, has long baffled Canadian scientists, health professionals and social workers ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: For all the Conservative bluster that they support provincial autonomy and working with the provinces, when push comes to shove, Harper still wants to pretend that only his team has anything to offer to Canadians.

    Patterns of substance abuse differ wildly across the country. Vancouver, Fort McMurray, York Region and Labrador are all very different places and require different strategies.

    The Conservatives need to that true cooperation with the provinces means allowing for provincial particularities (That's why we have provinces and municipalities in the first place!)

    Essentially, the Conservatives have shown that they have no intention whatsoever of working with the Provinces on any file or taking into account any particular situation in any province.
  2. David Davies from Orangeville, Canada writes: The UN opposes injection sites.

    The last time I was in downtown Vancouver the local merchants were handing our flyers asking people not to give money to pan-handles in order to discourage funding their addictions.

    Any support of the addicts of any kind, such as a free injection site, only supports the addiction.

    Make treatment of the addiction mandatory, not discretionary or voluntary. Sure, many will not be able to be cured of their addiction, but we will not have paved their road deeper into the hell in which they live.

    If our society is willing to limit free speech, we should be more than ready to limit the choices of heroin addicts.
  3. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Why are people confused?

    Needle exchanges don't require exemptions from Canadian and international narcotic laws; places like INSITE do.

    Clement is correct to resist extending narcotic law exemptions--there is NO PROOF that harm reduction is better with INSITE than exchanges. If there was irrefutable eveidence that INSITE conferred additional benefits (there isn't), then exemptions make sense.

    Anyway, I asked a theoretical (but serious) question on the other thread--

    If I walk in to INSITE with some heroin, and say that I want them to help me with my first injection ever, what do they do? I'll tell them I'm shooting up no matter what.

    Everybody has a 'first time', right?? Would they enable me to do it safely???
  4. D G from Canada writes: Lord is this government (and some people) dense. How in any sane person's mind does it make sense to approve of giving out clean needles but then to turn around and say we disapprove of you using it in a safe environment?

    Pick one or the other but this government's arbitrary line is ridiculous.
  5. Kevin Archibald from Dundas, Canada writes: Tony Clement is on drugs.

    INSITE should go farther, giving the heroine to users. No more dealers, no more people doing horrible things to themselves and each other, no more unsafe drugs.

    Then, with all users supplied and managed through a single system, many treatment options would be exposed to them. And even if they did not take advantage of a program that would take them off drugs, at least no civilian is going to find his car stolen or apartment broken into for a few measly dollars.
  6. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Kevin--

    "INSITE should go farther, giving the heroine to users. No more dealers, no more people doing horrible things to themselves and each other, no more unsafe drugs."

    Great idea Kevin. Then I can walk in and demand a free shot. I will tell them that I've never used heroin before, but that I want to give it a go.

    If they refuse me, I can file a HRC complaint.

    The other option, of course, is to become a regular user (on the street). Then I would qualify for free smack from INSITE, right?
  7. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: That's a remarkably stupid posting, spicydoc. The heroin would only be supplied to those whom a medical exam have determined to be addicts. I fear there are too many with a vested interest in having the war on drugs continue for this to happen of course.
  8. rufus giroux from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ummmm Spicydoc -

    How many overdoses has the exchange program prevented? There are statistics showing Insite's difference. How many addicts have been referred to treatment through the exchange program? There are hard records of the Insite referrals, and other benefits.

    There is no shortage of "irrefutable evidence", just an apparent shortage of people who want to see it.
  9. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver B.C., Canada writes: I've recently sent email to our Minister of Health, thanking him for standing up to the Addict Support Industry in Mexico City. Why? Because our elected officials need to know that Canadians support their stance on the issues that affect us. All of us who support what our government's position is on this CRUCIAL matter of public safety (more important than our activities in Afghanistan) should make our views known to them, and to the Addict Support Industry even if they don't like it. I find it personally offensive that the Addict Support Industry acts in a condescending manner toward anyone who disagrees with their views. Who are they to tell me what is right, and what is wrong? Who are they to tell me that I am intolerant? I tolerate them, but I disagree with their views. I am entitled to believe what I see with my own eyes, here in Vancouver, in the Downtown Eastside. I disagree with the continuance and expansion of the population of addicts by facilitating drug use, and condoning and destigmatizing drug use, and re-branding it as a disease. Don't you dare call me intolerant. I am as free to express my opinion as you are, and I will fight for my right to do so. Have a nice day.
  10. jason green from writes: The Conservatives are an overwhelmingly rural party – with all the usual bigotries, petty homophobias and general cluelessness about urban life. The pig farmers in Alberta don't understand Insite, so it doesn't matter how many health care professionals or medical experts support harm reduction -- the Conservatives will be against it. Throw too much book larnin’ at a conservative and confusion starts to reign.
  11. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    rufus giroux from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    "Ummmm Spicydoc -

    How many overdoses has the exchange program prevented?"

    Ummmm rufus---maybe one a year, based on INSITES own data. I will post the report shortly, you can point out all the wonderful irrefutable evidence. Good luck. I've read it completely 3 times. All that supports INSITE is the good intentions of those involeved. The stats, however.....not so good.
  12. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    rufus and others--

    Here's the actual report. Do yourself a favour and read the whole thing. Then reconsider your opinions. If you feel the same way after educating yourself, then more power to you. Making strong statements from a position of ignorance doesn't really help anybody.

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php
  13. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: There's a reason why Conservatives are shut out of the largest cities. They simply do not understand urban issues.

    Spiceydoc, the proof is that people who use INSITE have a DEMONSTRATED RECORD of greatly increased rates of addicts accepting rehab treatment for their addiction and staying clean afterwards.

    Essentially, INSTIE gets a captive audience to make its case for them to quit drugs. Addicts chronically procrastinate and tend to be paranoid and, in many cases, anti-social, all really huge blocks to them pro actively seeking help. INSITE's found away to tear away at some of those blocks.

    So the message to the Conservatives: Instead of Ivory Tower platitudes, deal with the facts and support the solutions that work. Let get with a program based on science, not Stockwell DayDream's fantasies.
  14. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Paul Thompson from Canada writes:

    "That's a remarkably stupid posting, spicydoc. The heroin would only be supplied to those whom a medical exam have determined to be addicts."

    Remarkably stupid, Paul?

    What tests are available to prove that somebody deserves INSITE?

    A tox screen??--nonspecific.

    HIV--might be unsafe sex.

    Hep C--could have been a transfusion.

    My question isn't stupid:

    What does INSITE do when a 'virgin' walks in and wants help injecting safely??

    If INSITE refuses a virgin, and only accepts people who are already lost causes (ie hopeless infections and addictions), then what good are they??

    Answer the question!!
  15. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Kevin Archibald from Dundas, Canada writes: Tony Clement is on drugs.

    INSITE should go farther, giving the heroine to users. No more dealers, no more people doing horrible things to themselves and each other, no more unsafe drugs.

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

    Kevin: Are you on drugs? Are you actually trying to support INSITE?

    Or are you a Conservative spoiler? Tony Clement claimed that people were making this case. I still have yet to hear it from anyone but a fringe loonie with no connections to a major party.

    So, I'm going to go with you're actually Tony Clement trying to cover your tracks, or your actually typing this from INSTIE right now in a Heroin induced daze.

    The treatment facilities are upstairs. I suggest you check them out.

    By the by, there are no such things as safe drugs.
  16. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Spiceydoc:

    When a heroin "virgin" comes in, they usually don't ask those questions. If someone were to volunteer them, here's the drill:

    1. Offer counselling. Try to talk them out of it. Specifically ask them why.
    2. If they refuse to be talked out of it, you've got to realize its better that they come to the place with the treatment centre upstairs. Better to be hanging around the clinic then around the drug pushers.

    I really don't see it happening. You need to bring your own drugs. Hard drugs are something you pick up from "social" situations, from a pusher or "friends." Its not a solitary thing where you'd just show up to INSITE wanting a sample.
  17. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Jim Q--

    "Spiceydoc, the proof is that people who use INSITE have a DEMONSTRATED RECORD of greatly increased rates of addicts accepting rehab treatment for their addiction and staying clean afterwards."

    Wrong, Jim. There is no proof that INSITE improves rehab success. What happens is the nurse talks to the junkies, and suggest Rehab. The junkies say "Yeah, sure...now where's my needle". Sometimes a junkie will sign up and attend, but the drop-out rate/recidivism is about 100%.

    The only hope for the hopeless is dedicated, inhouse, medically supported DETOX/WITHDRAWL. With this measure, the success rate jumps from zero to 5% (based on Asian programs of forced withdrawl-detox).

    INSITE is supported because we intuitively want it to work.

    It doesn't. It's not worth suspending the narcotic laws.
  18. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Jim Q--

    Every hopeless addict was a 'virgin' who lost his/her cherry at some point in time.

    What does INSITE do with these people? Seriously....do you know??
  19. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Hi Spiceydoc. Read the report. Found these little nuggets in there:

    Approximately 15% of all clients were referred for further assistance. Of these 43% were for the treatment of drug dependence, 32% were to primary health-care facilities and 25% were to social welfare services.

    Around half of these referrals were made in writing and of these, 20% were confirmed to have resulted in the client making contact with the specified agency.

    Eleven percent (11%) of clients were referred for drug treatment and frequent visitors were more likely to be referred for treatment and take up the referral.

    .............................................................

    Further analysis using retrospective and prospective database linkages with local detoxification services and residential programs indicated that the opening of INSITE was associated with a 30% increase in detoxification service use and a subsequent increase in rates of initiation of long-term addiction treatment and a decreased injecting at INSITE

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

    So, thems the facts. A 30% Increase in the total number of people seeking treatment. That's not just INSTIE users, that's the impact of Insite on the whole population.

    Either insite works, or Stockwell Day is the second coming and has reached out his healing hands.....but we both know that even in that part of Vancouver, no one wants Stockwell touching them.
  20. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Ahhhhhh, facts. I love them. They work wonders on the dogmatic yes-men "neo"-conservatives even better than Muskol. Seriously, you've all got to try it. Now, can we get some real Conservatives on this board and have a serious discussion about this?
  21. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: yeah prohibition is a decidedly un-conservative position ... talk about a nanny state, hell it's a nanny police state - simply shows how the conservative movement has been totally hijacked by the theocons.
  22. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Jason, thank you for making a point for me. Contrary to your assertion that Conservatives are "overwhelmingly rural", somehow implying that they are uneducated, that "too much book larnin' " is confusing to us, and that we are a party of "pig farmers from Alberta", I present...You!
    I'll begin the name calling thusly; Rude, inconsiderate, condescending, uninformed, prejudiced, intolerant, insufferable, frustrated and preachy. Yes you, preachy. I'll also have you know this; I am an urbanite, a polymath (look it up), a member of Mensa, a recovering alcoholic, a minor hockey coach and a father to 4 children, all of whom appreciate my sobriety. What addicts need is abstinence, not free heroin or cocaine, or meth or whatever. What they need are life skills. What they need is care and if they are too far gone to recover to any degree, they need facilities to care for them. I am not going to lump all scientists into the "favor InSite" camp as you do, there are those that oppose the idea of facilitating continuing addiction. It's time the Addict Support Industry, of which you may be or wish to be a part of, quit trying to paint opponents of InSite as uneducated rabble akin to the witch hunters of medieval times.
    Use your head, become a part of the Addiction Eradication Industry, or you will look like an idiot yourself.
  23. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Gyula Huszar , bravo! I can't stand the rural bashers. They just look everyone around them look dumb.

    Well, it looks like we share a common goal.

    No one serious is advising free drugs (least of all INSITE). What you need to understand is that Alcohol and Heroin are two very different drugs. The users here are overwhelmingly homeless, prostitutes etc. with an 80% incidence of a criminal record. They tend not to have family support or a healthy social circle to lean on, as you did.

    In a way, INSITE offers them a tentative reach from a concerned family. Rather than simply trying to remove their drugs (a bad move with these usually highly defensive people), INSITE gets its foot in the metaphorical door by reaching out not with judgment but with caring. Once the users have someone who REALLY cares, these INSITE professionals have a much better chance of getting them to quit than the police.

    Think about it, who do you trust more? The one who cleans you up and feeds you after your last bender, or the policeman who smacks you on the head and calls you a villain?

    The numbers speak for themselves. Lets get off our high horses and really try to help these people.
  24. Ed Long from Canada writes: Health professionals, scientists and social workers each have one vote.

    So do I.

    I am with the government on this issue.

    Next.
  25. Daniel Cunningham from Victoria, writes: Yet again the Theo-Cons ignore their own Red Tories & go the easy way out - to appeal to their bible-thumping fundy Albertan supporters. Keep up the good work - at this rate you won't even form the next minority government, let alone majority government.
  26. Jamie Rothwell from Canada writes: Gyula Huszar Im puzzled. I know what a polymath is and I googled your user name. So far all I can find is heated comments full of rhetoric and insult, extreme stances on issues and generally a personal attack for anyone who disagrees with your often narrow view. So another commenter decided to resort to a stereotype. Did that really justify a bloated post bragging of your accomplishments?
    Leonardo Da Vinci is an example of a polymath. You sir are not that. Often when people boast of their genius through anger it shows great insecurities and intolerance.
    One of the great things about being Canadian is having the right to an opinion. You have yours and yes I would defend it if attacked but I wonder if you would defend another's right to opinion as strong as you attack people for being different.
  27. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr. Rothwell, you've managed to lower the bar of intellectual discussion another notch with your last post, just when Jim Q. from Halifax had set it higher. My posts are meant to engender debate, and sometimes they are provocative. Nothing more. As far as insulting people, I'm sure you cannot find a single example on the web anywhere. As far as bragging about my accomplishments, intelligence is not fostered or taught, it's either there, or it is not. Narrow views? Perhaps my views are consistent, and I am able to support my views with logic and example. I have visited InSite, have you? I have been a part of hundreds of A.A., N.A. and C.A. meetings, have you? I've done my research, have you? I've attended meetings in my community dealing with addiction, and my contributions are well received, and they are constructive, do you? I speak from first-hand experience, do you? If you answered "no" to the above questions, perhaps you can get involved, and spend your time helping rather than jeering from the sidelines.
    If you want to keep this going after the thread is closed, post your email.
  28. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: Caught between ideology and a public place. No wonder Mr. Clement is talking out both sides of his mouth.
  29. Joe Black from Canada writes: Harper's Tories clearly don't give a damn about provincial jurisdiction in Western Canada when it doesn't back the erroneous beliefs of their dark age, Earth is 1000 years old, followers.
  30. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Thank you Gyula Huszar. You are quite brave to stand up to all these misguided thug-huggers. Have you read the books/essays of Theodore Dalrymple? Google his essay entitled "Don't Legalize Drugs". It is excellent ammunition for doing battle with the emotion-driven arguments of your current opponents. Is your e-mail address posted here somewhere?
  31. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes:
    Both sides are wrong-headed.

    The decision about what one puts into one's own body is properly that of the individual whose body it is and so is the responsibility for dealing with addiction. Government has no legitimate role to play in either.

    When government decides to meddle in the affairs of individuals, the results are invariably evil.
  32. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: Donn Burkholder, I appreciate your support, as you can see we are viewed by the Addict Support Industry with the kind of loathing usually reserved for something truly disgusting. It's not unusual for people to pour out their hatred on those who disagree, especially if they are protected by the anonymity of the web. Note that Mr. Rothwell hasn't posted his email address in response to my challenge; he is a web page designer himself and he knows that posting that kind of info publicly leads to uninvited email. I cannot post my email for the same reason. I'm afraid I haven't read Mr. Dalrympl's books, but I have posted quite a bit in the letters section and the essay section of Realjustice.ca. There are people out there who care about the negative elements in our society that would perpetuate and enshrine drug use, even though they know that it is one of the most harmful and destructive things a human can do to him/herself. Get involved. Email your elected officials, tell them what you think. I do and I'm proud to say that most of the time I'm heard and answered by those in high office. They need your support, too.
    Brad Reddekopp, I believe all of us are in favor of self-determination; I happen to believe that society need not support activities that both harm the individual and society in general. Especially when innocent people are harmed by the addict's activity. I am innocent, and wish to remain unharmed by the activities of others who will not control themselves. Can you blame me? I wish to protect my children from the harm that drug addiction visits on innocents everywhere. Does this make me an evil person?
    No, you depend on people like me to keep society operating. If you don't like it, you should do something to improve the situation.
  33. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Alcohol and tobacco remain the two biggest threats to human health amongst available drugs. Some illegal drugs are completely harmless. There is nothing related to morality in our decisions about what drugs we tolerate (or promote) in our society and what drugs are illegal. It's certainly not based on addiction or health as there are illegal drugs that are not addictive and don't damage human health (largely the so-called hallucinogens). If there were some rationale basis for some of these objections, I would listen. Too often, however, the same people who are advocating a get tough approach on drugs will then go on to complain about restrictions on where they can consume tobacco products. These are two completely irreconcilable positions.
  34. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Historically, conservatives have supported economic autonomy/freedom - less govt interference. So the buzz words such as 'getting rid of red tape', getting the govt out of business, and so on.

    On the other hand, conservatives have always interferred in social policy, and highly regulating the people. Hence, the concept of social conservatism.
  35. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Brad Reddekopp, your argument is quite common these days and it is deeply flawed. Here is a quote from an essay I mentioned earlier by Theodore Dalrymple (his real name is Anthony Daniels and he is a retired British psychiatrist who has worked in the poor regions of Africa as well as British slums and prisons): "Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers." Your argument represents the flawed "philosophical" argument for the legalization of illicit drugs. Dalrymple also addresses the equally flawed "pragmatic" argument. Here is a link to the essay (written in 1997): http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html Bobby Dy, you are touching on the "pragmatic" argument. You asked for a rational basis for my objections. I refer you to Dalrymple again: "Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary. Surely we have already slid down enough slippery slopes in the last 30 years without looking for more such slopes to slide down." Alcohol and tobacco are "genies" that have been "let out of the bottle" and will not be put back. Releasing more of these "genies" would be foolish in light of the destruction these two have caused. Consider this: the addict does NOT need the addiction-support bureacracy (Dalrymple has PROVEN this, e.g. heroin addicts do NOT need methadone), however, the bureaucracy NEEDS the addict. This is what I find truly disturbing.
  36. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: yawn and the harm done to families for jailing people who take marijuana isn't worse than using mj?

    bunch of nonsense that selective takes what it wants for evidence while ignoring evidence that contradicts it's specious claims...hmm where have we seen that sort of thinking before...

    Human history is tens of thousands of years old and the current cannabis laws only 80 years old this year - total garbage we need prohibition - it causes farm more costs and harms to society than the drug use itself.

    It's a health issue not a policing issue - get over yourself you petty believing thugs who need to impose your words and behaviours on others upon pain of death and punishment.
  37. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr. Tripper, did you read the article? How did you end up commenting on marijuana when the issue is injecting drugs at a state-supported facility in Vancouver? Do you inject marijuana at InSite? What has marijuana got to do with anything written here? I agree with Bobby Dy that alcohol abuse and tobacco use are bigger problems than heroin or cocaine use, but turning this into a "The man doesn't understand us marijuana users" soapbox is waaayyy off topic. Sorry to come down on you like this, but maybe you should cut down on your THC before you drift further into irrelevance. BTW, I am not a "thug".
  38. Michael Tripper from Canada writes: yo dumass I was responding to the idiot above me and his specious arguments
  39. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Michael Tripper, if my arguments are specious then I invite you to demonstrate to me where the truth of my arguments breaks down. But before that, I invite you to learn some English grammar. Looks like you indulged a little too much "mj" before posting. Why don't you sober up and then come back and play? The article that spawned this thread deals with Insite - a supervised INJECTION site for illicit drug users. When was the last time you injected your "mj"? Come back down to earth and learn to spell. You twit.
  40. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: I cannot enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman). You may pass, Michael Tripper.
  41. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: The secular American Constitution, Ben Franklin, Lincoln, electricity, microbiology, the pyramids, Stonehenge, astronomy, chemistry, maths, the wheel, democracy...all achieved prior to Prohibition 80 years ago.

    Prohibition is a religious-based dogma. There are two types of people in this debate - those that live in the real word and love fantasy and those that live in fantasy and hate reality. The so-called religious are the latter.

    When those who live in fantasy cannot sway those living in reality with the strength of their arguments, they bring down the family-destroying hammer and sickle of the state to destroy those who think and behave differently involving only, if at all, consenting adults.

    I am amused with the etymology wit and twit.

    I have no need to venture more.
  42. The Phantom from Canada writes: I think the Canadian health minister should be forced to resign. He is clearly putting his evangelical political party's moral agenda ahead of the physical health of Canadians.
  43. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: The biggest problem with Insite is that it still requires addicts to purchase unknown quantities of impure substances on the street (enriching thugs who sort out business quarrels with handguns).

    A far better approach - modeled after the UK, Switzerland and the Netherlands - is the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI), a small pilot study in Montreal and Vancouver that offered free prescription diacetylmorphine (aka heroin) and hydromorphine (aka Dilaudid) to people who are dependent on opioids. Results will be published according to scientific, peer-review protocols later this fall, but preliminary anecdotal reports are that it produced the same results as the European programs: improved health (including engagement in abstinence-based treatment) and reduced criminal activities (i.e. petty theft to pay exorbitant street prices).

    And for anyone who think prescribing pharmaceutical heroin is not a good way to treat heroin addiction, consider that the gold standard for treating tobacco dependence is the prescription of pharmaceutical nicotine!!!

    BTW, this isn't "fringe" work - NAOMI was funded by the Canadian Institute for Health Research, the premier medical research granting body.
  44. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Neo Pagan, the tab for Insite research is currently well over $2-million yet none of the studies has examined whether or not Insite reduces overall use of illicit drugs. Prescription pharmaceutical nicotine is designed to reduce smoking, and it works. You want to talk about Europe? Recently Governor-General Michaëlle Jean informed Queen Sylvia of Sweden about Canada's "enlightened" approach to illicit drugs. Queen Sylvia responded that Sweden gives users of illicit drugs a hard-line choice between treatment and jail and that Sweden's addiction rates are much lower than Canada's. Our GG quickly changed the subject. And by the way... NO ONE is "dependent" on opioids. Prisons in Britain have simlply locked addicts up "dry" and the addicts were fine. It's the "DT's" in alcoholics that the jailers really have to worry about. What do you think addicts do when they can't find drugs because they're broke or their dealer goes to jail or the cops make a big seizure and the streets are temporarily "dry"? They simply move on. Like you should.
  45. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder (DB) from Sarnia writes: "none of the studies has examined whether or not Insite reduces overall use of illicit drugs" . . . The Insite research has not tried to measure this, because that is not the goal of supervised injection sites. It is harm reduction, not treatment - it may be an intervention that can engage marginalized individuals into treatment, and ultimately abstinence, but that is not the point!

    DB writes: "Prescription pharmaceutical nicotine is designed to reduce smoking" . . . Actually, Rx nicotine is designed to reduce the lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other serious health conditions that result from tobacco smoking. If tobacco smoking didn't cause such illnesses, public health officials wouldn't be concerned about it! Also note that we have had a whole suite of policy levers operating to reduce tobacco use, none of which involved prohibition, which in the case of illegal drugs is a source of so much harm.

    DB writes: "Sweden's addiction rates are much lower than Canada's" . . . Perhaps, but the Swedish government also imposes a much higher tax burden on its citizens and invests heavily in promoting early childhood development, including parental leaves, daycare, and home visitation by health professionals to new parents. I don't see the Tories doing anything similar here!

    DB writes: "Sweden gives users of illicit drugs a hard-line choice between treatment and jail" . . . So does the U.S. (well mostly they just go to jail) and we don't see the same results there, do we? Also, if coerced treatment is so effective, shouldn't the first population we start with be the tobacco smokers, whose burden on the health care system is far greater than that of all illegal drug users combined? How many nicotine addicts would accept such a flagrant violation of their civil liberties?
  46. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: Neo Pagan and Donn Burkholder; Great to see you dueling it out using clear thinking and potent arguments. May I weigh in with an opinion? Facilitating and nurturing drug use by have state-sponsored, approved and inspected facilities to inject street drugs is....stupid. The drugs are bought on the street, are untested, and as such are inherently unsafe.
    I won't even get into the procurement issue here.
    But there are those who will not consider changing their behavior, no matter the consequences. For these people, supplying them with pharmaceutical equivalents in a controlled environment, and by this I mean a locked and guarded facility, may be the best available choice. If the addict is willing to give up their life to drugs, they may be willing to do it without the option of returning to society while still an addict. Addiction harms society, and society must seek to protect itself in a humane manner. Quarantine the addicts, give them a choice; free drugs and shelter until you die, or clean up, get some life skills and treatment for addiction and get released. I saw that the SARS victims were quarantined, they posed a real danger to society, and they were treated and released. Not much difference here. JMHO in Vancouver.
  47. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    The Phantom from Canada writes: I think the Canadian health minister should be forced to resign. He is clearly putting his evangelical political party's moral agenda ahead of the physical health of Canadians.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inste is NOT working.

    You should cease posting.
    Quite clearly your ideological desire to see more liberal use of IV drugs in society is clouding your judgment.

    INSITE OUT OF VANCOUVER NOW!!!
  48. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "NO ONE is 'dependent' on opioids" . . . That's funny DB, medical science has acknowledged opioid dependence for at least a century . . . I suppose you have some insight that most medical professionals don't? You mention the lack of life-threatening side effects of acute withdrawal from opioids (in comparsion with alcohol) - I think you're confusing physiogical tolerance with addiction. These are not the same thing! Would you make similar claims about gambling? The immediate termination of gambling has no physiological consequences for the compulsive gambler, but very few would deny that for some poor individuals it's a chronic relapsing psychological disorder!

    Instead of reading the quack Dalrymple, try Dr. Gabor Mate's latest book, "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts": http://www.drgabormate.com/ghosts.php

    Dr. Mate combines the latest neuroscientific and genetic research with his own clinical experience working as a physician on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Most enlightening!
  49. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Donn Burkholder: Swedish tax rates anyone? Not to mention all the "socialist intrusiveness" or "nanny statism" the Swedes indulge themselves in. Which is a major whine issue of you and your ilk here. But our tax rates and "government meddling"private business" is nothing compared to Sweden's. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways dudette.

    And then we can add the issue of the very homogeneous population in Sweden. Until very recently, and the current number of Islamic immigrants to Sweden is still very small. And, if those immigrants get too far out of hand, they will be dealt with. Harshly. The Swedes are no patsies or doormats.

    Note that the Swedes - ands the rest of Europe sp-ends a lot on rehab. Which Stevie and crew have been cutting.

    Let's see dedicated and increased funding for social programmes and prevention and rehab. Put your money where your mouth is, baitch. Otherwise, STFU.
  50. Gyula Huszar from Vancouver, Canada writes: Neo Pagan; I think I'll read Dr. Mate's book, the excerpts I've read are compelling. I will go so far as to meet the man with the questions and observations that I will no doubt have. Thank you for the reference.
  51. Donn Burkholder from Canada writes: Neo Pagan, thank you for engaging me in intelligent discourse. It is refreshing compared to other "thug-huggers" that resort to insults and profanity. With that said, I return to our debate. I challenge you to define "harm reduction". I consider the harm that is caused to the addict and his community by his addiction to be significant enough to be interested in the "reduction" of such harm. You seem to merely interested in the trivial matter of managing the risks of ADMINISTRATION of the illicit drugs. Your "harm reduction" ignores the risks associated with the illicit drugs THEMSELVES. The irony is painfully poetic. You have not contradicted my smoking argument. I implied the benefits of reducing lung cancer, etc when I mentioned the reduction of smoking. You are simply agreeing with me in more detail. Just because we don't share the same tax rates and levels of state intervention with Sweden does not mean there is nothing we can learn from the concept of their hard-line approach to addiction. You mentioned Switzerland in your "model" of NAOMI but I dare say I doubt you would agree to Canada requiring military service for qualification for citizenship (as the Swiss do), am I right? We can pick and choose. With respect to the American situation, I refer to your above argument about tax rates and state intervention (Sweden). The USA has even less of these things than we Canadians do. Maybe if the Americans paid their cops and prosecutors more (as we do) they would have more effective law enforcement. American law enforcement goals in general definitely need to be re-examined. But so do Canadian correctional goals. Canadian prisons need to learn about "punishment". With respect to prohibition of tobacco, it is too late. The genie is already out of the bottle. Would I agree with an immediate ban on tobacco anyway? You betcha. I had to battle with asthma for most of my life as a result of childhood exposure to second-hand smoke. I DETEST smoking.
  52. Donn Burkholder from Canada writes: Neo Pagan, you have conceded that opioid "dependency" (i.e. addiction) does not include physiological elements. This concession is HUGELY significant and it is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I denied the existence of such "dependency". You are NOT in the majority of the supporters of Insite and the rest of the addiction-support bureaucracy. The arguments for Insite and against Tony Clement's actions generally RELY on the assumption of such physiological elements in the word "addiction". This is the very myth that I am trying to bust (with help from Dalrymple). If illicit drug addiction is psychological and akin to gambling addiction (as you have suggested) then let's take away the drugs and give the addicts talk-therapy, what do you say? If you don't agree, then should we create a "Casino-site" for all the poor saps with missing fingers and smashed knee-caps? You can't have it both ways. I will check out your Dr Gabor Mate. It's the least I can do to repay you for your eloquent arguments. However, Dr Daniels (i.e. Dalrymple) is not a "quack". Have you read his book "Life at the Bottom"? INCREDIBLY enlightening. The man is an artist. Orest Zarowsky, you are tiresome with your lame "dudette" insult. Thank you for clearly illustrating the counter-example to Neo Pagan's eloquence. Furthermore, you have strangely served to support my argument by mentioning that the "Swedes are no patsies or doormats". I assume that you are implying that we Canadians would do well to learn from this example. And I agree whole-heartedly. You punk.
  53. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: From a BC Ministry of Health policy document (available at: http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/ptf/hrcommunityguide.pdf)

    "Harm reduction is a pragmatic response that focuses on keeping people safe and minimizing death, disease and injury associated with higher risk behaviour, while recognizing that the behaviour may continue despite the risks."

    Note that by this definition, "harm reduction" applies to any activity that has associated risk. Seatbelts for automobiles, helmets for cycling and snowboarding, lifeguards at beaches are all examples of interventions that do not insist on "abstinence" from activities that can produce harm, but rather try to mitigate the potential risk.

    One of the problems with contemporary political and public discourses about drugs is the failure to distinguish harms from drugs (i.e. pharmacological) with the harms from drug policies (i.e. prohibition). A perfect example is HIV - there is no necessary connection between HIV and injection drug use, as any diabetic who injects insulin daily can tell you. With the dispensation of heroin in clinics such as NAOMI's, the risk of HIV from heroin inject is zero, exactly what it ought to be. Instead, 100 years of prohibition has created conditions of cultural marginality among heroin users whereby needle sharing has become common practice.

    Another example is overose. Providing a measured quantity of pharmaceutical-grade diacetymorphine brings the risk of overdose to zero. We understand this with alcohol, the distribution of which is regulated so that consumers can be assured of the purity and quantity they're consuming (and incidentally, alcohol is much more toxic than heroin) but because of historical prejudice - and fear of "sending the wrong message" - we can't bring ourselves to do the same with currently illegal drugs.
  54. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "You seem to merely interested in the trivial matter of managing the risks of ADMINISTRATION of the illicit drugs."

    I disagree. My concern is reducing the overall level of harm produced by the perennial human proclivity to alter consciousness with psychoactive substances. The notion of a "drug-free" world is laughably preposterous. Rather than squandering precious financial and human resources on a quixotic war on drugs, we should be working on learning how to live with these substances in such a way that we maximize their benefits and minimize their harms. Prohibition, for anyone who cares to read up on its relatively recent history, has been an egregious failure at acheiving any of its goals (many good books on this - I recommend Richard Davenport-Hines' The Pursuit of Oblivion: http://wwnorton.com/catalog/fall03/032545.htm)

    Think about the basic indicators of success for the "get tough" prohibition approach: reduced availability of illegal drugs, reduced problematic use of illegal drugs, increased price of illegal drugs, reduced crime associated with illegal drugs . . . On every measure, we've been going the wrong way. The best places to buy illegal drugs are prisons and schools!!! And the most obvious failure on this count is the so-called "land of the free" to the south, whose overflowing prisons and crumbling public education system haven't done very much to stem their drug problem. Talk about misplaced priorities.
  55. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "You have not contradicted my smoking argument . . . With respect to prohibition of tobacco, it is too late. The genie is already out of the bottle. Would I agree with an immediate ban on tobacco anyway? You betcha"

    Tobacco is an excellent example of what public health gains can be acheived without resorting to failed prohibitionist policies. We've used multiple policy levers such as controlling price and availability, as well as public education.

    A prohibition on tobacco would be completely unworkable, not least because of its disrespect to Canada's aboriginal populations, for whom tobacco has been a sacred plant since long before Europeans stole their land and culture. Unfortunately, the ceremonial use of tobacco was largely suppressed and replaced with a commodified industrial product.

    One of the problems with both tobacco and alcohol is that we've allowed corporations to market and promote their consumption. Corporations are highly effective entities with respect to maximizing shareholders' profits, but their record on improving public health has been abysmal (look at the junk food industry and its lobbying efforts).

    A much better alternative to the status quo would be to have a coherent psychoactive substance policy that recognizes the similarities and differences of each kind of substance, without any arbitrary historical or cultural prejudice.

    Heroin, cocaine, cannabis and LSD are each unique - but in current popular consciousness and legal systems, they're simply lumped together as "drugs." This is not helpful. An excellent proposal for more rational drug polices, based on principles of public health and human, has been put forward by the Health Officers Council of British Columbia: http://www.cfdp.ca/bchoc.pdf
  56. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "I will check out your Dr Gabor Mate. It's the least I can do to repay you for your eloquent arguments"

    Even if you don't agree with his conclusions (which I'm guessing you won't), it's well-written, well-researched and well worth the time.

    And thanks for the respectful compliment! :-)
  57. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Neo Pagan, should we mitigate the risk of rape by providing HIV-free women to rapists? This would bring the risk of HIV infection for the rapist to zero. Is our current prohibition of rape an egregious failure because crimes of rape still occur? Driving, cycling, snowboarding, and swimming at a beach all compare to illicit drug use in the same way they compare to rape. Prohibition has not "created conditions of cultural marginality among heroin users", they have ALWAYS BEEN "culturally marginal", i.e. CRIMINAL (as have rapists). The notion of a "drug-free" world is laughably preposterous in the same way the notion of a "crime-free" world is similarly laughably preposterous. Do you blame the Criminal Code for the deaths of criminals (e.g. car thieves) who die in car accidents while fleeing police? Drug policies (i.e. prohibition) do not cause harm from illicit, prohibited drugs just as criminal law does not cause harm from crime. You are suggesting that we send the message to addicts that the poison that they are injecting themselves with is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE by legalizing it. Again I respond to your alcohol argument, alcohol is a genie already out of the bottle. I grant you that it is a destructive substance that ruins lives. So we certainly don't need to LEGITIMIZE any more such substances. With respect to the "land of the free", maybe American infrastructure is crumbling because their taxes are too low, but it certainly isn't because they prohibit illicit drugs. I assume your reference to Richard Davenport-Hines and Prohibition deals with alcohol Prohibition in relatively recent history. As I have mentioned above, "Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use."
  58. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: NP wrties: "Tobacco is an excellent example of what public health gains can be acheived without resorting to failed prohibitionist policies." No sir, it is not. If you have ever watched a pregnant woman take a drag off a cigarette you would do well to reconsider your position (I have withstood the horror of such a spectacle). I work in law enforcement and I have enforced smoke-free legislation on behalf of public health departments. The public health officials I have worked with lament the destruction caused by smoking in their communities. If the genie of tobacco could be put back in the bottle, they (and myself) would jam it there in a heartbeat. "Lumping" various illicit drugs together is very helpful in law enforcement, by the way. Police are not usually trained physicians. You can maximize the benefits of these substances (illicit drugs) by letting scientists conduct research on them (which I agree with). You can minimize their harm by keeping them ILLEGAL and sending the message that they are not to be played with. Legalization would not reduce their usage. Read Dalrymple's essay quoted above and note what he discovered when British construction workers were offered alcohol at negligible prices... "when alcohol is effectively free of charge, a fifth of British construction workers will regularly go to bed so drunk that they are incontinent both of urine and feces." You're welcome for the compliment. I just spent $36.70 today on a hardcover copy of "Hungry Ghosts". I have already been impressed by Dr Maté. I have yet to see where Dr Maté contradicts Dalrymple. Then again, I've just begun the book. Feel free to direct me to any such contradictions.
  59. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: NP, just a parting shot regarding smoking... when I enforced smoking bans in indoor public places and workplaces (such as bars), I regularly encountered the following sorts of arguments from my offenders. Example argument #1: "If the government thinks that smoking is so f-ing dangerous, then why do they f-ing allow it to be sold and collect f-ing taxes on it?" A hard shot to volley but I did my best using my passion for debate (which you may or may not have noted here in this forum). Imagine heroin addicts saying the same when, after legalization, we try to shoo them out of the food court at the mall with needles hanging out of their arms. Example argument #2: "We've been smoking in this bar since before you were born. Who the h- are you to tell us we can't now?" An even harder shot that I could only answer with the displaying of my badge. My point: it's the responsibility of men like Tony Clement to take the hard line and play the role of parent. Heather Crowe of Ottawa died of exposure to second-hand smoke in her workplace (she was a waitress). She never smoked one single cigarette in her life. Her death (along with her lawsuit) is what motivated the current wave of smoke-free legislation in Canada. Maybe we'll eventually get that genie in the bottle after all, eh? To this day there are grumpy smokers who DENY the danger of second-hand smoke. Just in case you think there is no comparison to second-hand smoke with respect to illicit drugs, I quote again, "Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers."
  60. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "Is our current prohibition of rape an egregious failure because crimes of rape still occur?"

    Ah yes, the old drug-use-is-like-rape-or-murder fallacy . . . It frightens me how many otherwise intelligent people fail to see the difference between these two activities. A rape or murder is a crime because it is morally wrong - the act involves one person intentionally inflicting unwanted pain or suffering on a victim. The use (or technically possession) of currently illegal drugs is a crime because our forefathers held unscientific and racially-biased prejudices about some kinds of psychoactive substances.

    Note that I'm not saying that psychoactive substance use does not sometimes have negative consequences. It can, although as I point out above, these are often more to do with the prohibited nature of the substance in question than any pharmacological properties. One can certainly behave immorally after ingesting a drug, but that does not make the ingestion itself immoral.

    There is nothing intrinsic in the act of altering one's consciousness with any psychoactive substance that is immoral. To illustrate this point, ask yourself if it's immoral for a mature responsible adult to smoke a cigarette (don't give me any red herrings about second hand smoke or pregnancy - those are different cases), drink a glass of wine, or eat a supersize, high-fat, high-sugar fast food meal. None of these may be healthy or advisable, but surely they are not immoral in the way that rape or murder is . . . There is nothing intrinsically immoral about ingesting heroin, cocaine or ketamine: these substances are used medically. So what is it about the non-medical use that makes it immoral, other than the fact that it is illegal (which would be a circular argument if you tried that assertion)?
  61. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "Prohibition has not 'created conditions of cultural marginality among heroin users', they have ALWAYS BEEN 'culturally marginal', i.e. CRIMINAL (as have rapists)"

    Sorry Donn, now you're displaying your ignorance. Heroin use was a rational response by market actors (i.e. both producers and consumers) to the 1911 international prohibition of non-medical use of opium. Read Davenport-Hines (whose book covers 500 years of cross-cultural drug use and policy responses, not just the 20th century experiment with alcohol prohibition as you suggest), or Catherine Carstairs' 2006 book Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920-1961 . . . http://www.utppublishing.com/pubstore/merchant.ihtml?pid=8598&step=4

    These and many other scholarly studies show very clearly that prohibition was the cause of many of the social and medical harms that we now confuse with the drugs themselves.

    For example, opium was used widely in China and in Canada by Chinese immigrants as a social lubricant, much the way Europeans drank alcohol. Many middle-class North American housewives used laudanum (opium/alcohol preparation) without serious health or social harms . . . To be sure, some individuals had problems resulting from their use, just as some alcohol consumers have problems, but the vast majority did not (just as most alcohol consumers do not). See Dikotter, Laamann, and Xun's 2004 book Narcotic Culture: A History of Drugs in China for insight on how opium was not the terrible social menace that either Western government's or Mao's communist party made it out to be.
  62. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "The public health officials I have worked with lament the destruction caused by smoking in their communities"

    But these same public health officials would be lamenting much more the wasted public resources that would have to go into fighting an unwinnable war-on-tobacco if we resorted to the simplistic response of prohibition. And don't forget, it is the public health community who are the strongest proponents of harm reduction interventions such as Insite, and many are now coming to the realization that prohibition itself is the bigger elephant in the room.

    DB writes: "You can minimize their harm by keeping them ILLEGAL and sending the message that they are not to be played with"

    Nice in theory, but in practice what results is a forbidden fruit situation, where many vulnerable young people are attracted to these substances because they're illegal. The DARE program graduates who take "just say no" messages to heart are exactly the same ones that we don't really need to worry about, as they have few of the risk factors for addiction or criminality. The kids who are on the margins are the ones who get engaged in both the use and distribution . . . and why not? Selling drugs at the enormously inflated street prices is a lucrative opportunity for someone who's not engaged in school and likely comes from a less-than-promising family background.

    Instead of investing in early childhood development and educational opportunities, we're instead pouring our precious resources into chasing and locking up those who fell through the cracks and went for opportunity to make easy money in the illegal drug trade. Again, look at the statistics from the United States, where in some states more money is spent on prisons than on schools . . .
  63. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "I could only answer with the displaying of my badge"

    Appeal to authority isn't a way to win an argument - perhaps you need to hone your debating skills further. For example, your tobacco enforcement examples are false analogies, as you weren't enforcing a law prohibiting tobacco, but rather a law restricting where it can be used. This makes it completely different from the laws against currently illegal drugs, where mere possesion can result in a fine or imprisonment. A law that prohibits drinking alcohol in public parks or while driving is not the same thing as a law that prohibits any and all possesion of alcohol. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer - if you still don't get it, perhaps enroll in a critical thinking course at your local college?

    Donn Burkholder writes: "My point: it's the responsibility of men like Tony Clement to take the hard line and play the role of parent"

    Sorry, Tony Clement ain't my daddy (in fact, I find it insulting to suggest that such an ignoramus knows better what I can put into my body than I myself do). Tony Clement may have "angels" on his side, but I have reason and scientific truth. His hard line (well actually, it's simply the Harper government's importation of the U.S. war on drugs - Clements speaking note appear to come straight from Washington) comes at the expense of the health and safety of Canada's most vulnerable and marginalized people. It's an embarrassment that he has the gaul to contradict the World Health Organization on the value of supervised injection sites, as he did in Mexico City!
  64. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: NP writes: "Appeal to authority isn't a way to win an argument". I beg to differ. It is handy when your opponent is making an irrational argument (and posing a physical threat to you, as was the case in my "false" analogy). The "winning" of an argument may be open-ended and subject to debate, but the appropriate wielding of authority is certainly an effective way to END an argument. The Honourable Mr Clement has wielded his authority quite well. With respect to opium history, have you ever heard of the "Opium Wars"? During which the British empire forced China to open her borders to opium against her collective will? Who is displaying their ignorance now? Labelling my arguments as "Red Herrings" does not effectively address them. But since you've resorted to this amateur tactic, your "forbidden fruit" analogy is as RED as herrings come. Following your logic, we should abandon enforcement of the criminal law altogether because we are foolishly creating an orchard of such fruit for "marginal" youth. Good grief man. Enrol yourself in a "reality check" course! My analogies are not "false". They really happened. It is your mystic crystal-ball perdictions of how wonderful the world will be after the legalization of illicit drugs that are highly suspect. You cannot argue against law enforcement because it costs too much. This is not an economic issue. It is a moral one. And the consumption of illicit drugs is immoral. But it is even more immoral to condone and even encourage addiction to these drugs (as addiction-support bureaucracy does with things like Insite). We need to pay more attention to protecting the victims of drug addicts (and criminals in general). I wish we would stop blowing so much tax $$ on methadone that the addicts don't need and doesn't stop them from consuming street drugs anyway.
  65. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Anyone who defends Insite is condoning IV drug use.

    Not in my country, you don't.
  66. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: NP writes: "Selling drugs at the enormously inflated street prices is a lucrative opportunity for someone who's not engaged in school and likely comes from a less-than-promising family background." My turn to cite a book. In "Freakonomics" by Levitt & Dubner, the authors explore a study of a Chicago street drug network and discover that the average street-level dealer effectively earns less than minimum wage via his drug dealing enterprises and often holds down a menial job as well just to make ends meet. Drug dealing is a pyramid-scheme and the man at the top takes ALL the profit. This is reality. Let it "check" you. In reference to your talk of "drink a glass of wine, or eat a supersize, high-fat, high-sugar fast food meal. None of these may be healthy or advisable, but surely they are not immoral in the way that rape or murder is." I have nothing against a glass of wine (I like Australian Cabernet Sauvignon's), but I think that obesity is a tremendous health problem and that junk food needs to be examined as a cause (a subject you yourself have already touched on). Illicit drug consumption may not merit the same punishment as rape or murder, but it is immoral. And anyway, Canada's correctional system currently focuses on rehabilitation and completely ignores punishment as an objective. That needs to change. It's time to start treating criminals like criminals. (Thanks to Gyula Huszar for the referral to Realjustice.ca).
  67. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: Michael Sharp, amen brother.
  68. Neo Pagan from Canada writes: Donn Burkholder writes: "have you ever heard of the 'Opium Wars'?"

    Yes, an imperialist economic policy that allowed the British to profit from its colonies of both India (where opium was produced) and China, where some of the opium was sold (remember, a lot was consumed in other parts of the empire, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand). However, the basic facts of these British economic policies say nothing about opium's status as a social force among all classes of Chinese society. The history of Chinese opium use is much more complex than you make it out to be. Again, I suggest you read up on it in the book I recommended, Narcotic Culture.

    DB writes: "the consumption of illicit drugs is immoral"

    This assertion is completely unsubstantiated. Simply saying it does not make it so. Why is it immoral? (I asked the same question above) . . . You can't answer simply "because it's illegal", as that's simply circular reasoning. What is it about my choosing to smoke a joint or take a tab of LSD or snort a line of MDMA that is immoral??? Please, help me to understand this, as I believe it's the crux of your argument (and I'm guessing also other social conservatives, such as Harper & Clement & Co.)

    In contrast, I suggest that failing to regulate the production and distribution of currently illegal drugs is what's immoral. I reserve the fundamental human right to cognitive liberty - i.e. to alter my consciousness in whatever way I see fit, so long as I don't harm anyone else in the process. The duty of government is to protect our health by ensuring that we can make informed decisions about all kinds of consumer products - what foods, beverages and, yes, drugs we choose to ingest. We instituted such basic regulatory oversights on the production and distribution of foods and beverages about a hundred years ago, but we have so far failed to do so for "illicit" drugs.
  69. Donn Burkholder from Sarnia ON, Canada writes: NP writes: "Sorry, Tony Clement ain't my daddy (in fact, I find it insulting to suggest that such an ignoramus knows better what I can put into my body than I myself do)." A telling statement. Could it be that your own personal desire to put these substances into your body is clouding your judgment? Can you say "conflict of interest"?