• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Safe-injection site in B.C. wins court protection

spaboy

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
Instead we hope that use of the center results in safer use even when not there, and in the best case scenarios, results in an addict seeking treatment based on resources they found when they visited the center.

let's say an addict has secured a good supply of clean needles, and then runs out - they go to the safe injection site, get a clean needle to tide them over before they get more. That user would not have been there every time they shot up, but the center was there when they needed it... how is that not effective?

Of course no addict can have 100% usage at the center & no I'm not suggesting they live there.

I'm just making the obvious point that all it takes is one time in an 'unclean' environment. So them being controlled 'some of the time' is not effective treatment. I understand your point about supplies & education but I think that goes out the window when an addict is jonesing. I by no means have statistics on how effective education is, it's just my opinion. I see how this whole project is a good thing but I don't think it's effective enough to take the allocated budget when it can be applied to helping cure ppl instead of supporting them.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

TraNceAhoLic

TRIBE Member
It is a very complicated situation. There are pros and cons and I just don't know where I stand. Where are these sites going to be located? It can also easily become a place where newer users can become further harmed by meeting new people with easier/cheaper etc., access to the drugs. I do support the idea of bringing health care to these people who deserve help. We can also expose them to treatment options like methadone etc. I think the point is to let these marginalized people know that there is a place out there where they wont be judged and can begin their journey to recovery, when they so choose. It plants a seed.
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
spaboy said:
Of course no addict can have 100% usage at the center & no I'm not suggesting they live there.

I'm just making the obvious point that all it takes is one time in an 'unclean' environment. So them being controlled 'some of the time' is not effective treatment. I understand your point about supplies & education but I think that goes out the window when an addict is jonesing. I by no means have statistics on how effective education is, it's just my opinion. I see how this whole project is a good thing but I don't think it's effective enough to take the allocated budget when it can be applied to helping cure ppl instead of supporting them.

Right, but to say that a safe injection site is ineffective because an addict won't be using it every time they shoot up and should thus be considered a waste of money I think is setting the standard a bit too high. In a harm reduction approach the goal is to use a multi-faceted approach to reduce - not end - harm. There is no way to prevent an addict from using a dirty needle when the drive to use is so strong and access to clean needles being unpredictable. How many dirty injections were we preventing in that area of Vancouver before the site opened up?

I understand the concern about taxpayer's dollars, but wonder if there aren't far more frivolous expenditures on the part of our governments that we could be criticizing. Michelrish mentioned some other prongs that she feels to be more valid:

michelrish said:
Better education, minus all the lies/exaggerations. De-criminalizing it so addicts aren't jailed, but rather sent to treatment centres. Public funding of treatment centres, so more addicts and their families can afford it.

I argue that all those things are great, but that safe-injection sites be included among those approaches. As it stands right now the decriminalization of possession, the funding of treatment centers, drug education are all lacking... so how could safe injection sites - on their own - really make all that much of a dent? And I'd say to Michelrish that safe injection sites do represent a place of "education - minus all the lies" - there's staff and resources there to educate users on the dangers of their addictions, and how to manage their addictions more safely...

But that still leaves the problem: Vancouver's safe injection site is an island of harm reduction in an ocean of moralistic prohibition. As WestsideWax put it:

WestsideWax said:
Ventures like these are not a fixed point - they're a work in progress, and it's highly possible that a more refined method of care/treatment could emerge from the current model, as ineffective as it might be.

The long-term goal is to have all of the things Michelrish mentioned, along with safe-injection sites, as a comprehensive harm reduction approach to drug use. Just the fact this site exists, and seems to be weathering all attempts to close it down, bodes well for there being a day in the future when it exists in such a harm reduction environment.

I think the greatest thing about the site is not simply the safety and education it offers to addicts, but what it represents about the direction our society takes to drug use.

If it gets people thinking that maybe harm reduction is the way to go, then I'd argue in the long-term it would have paid for itself since it's well documented that preventive/treatement measures against drug use are much more cost-effective than punishment/interdiction.
 

spaboy

TRIBE Member
Well said

praktik said:
safe injection sites do represent a place of "education - minus all the lies" - there's staff and resources there to educate users on the dangers of their addictions, and how to manage their addictions more safely...

I see this as the biggest benefit the program would deliver. As part of a bigger plan I can see where it fits in.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ya - and I was still havin this on the backburner - if the main argument against the site is going to be one of saving taxpayer's dollars when it comes to drug use, then why is this site the first thing on the chopping block, and not possession laws?

They represent a far greater drain (almost incalculably moreso) on our resources than one safe injection site. If saving money is your biggest concern, cut out the imprisonment and court time for possession (or consider streamlined "drug courts" that issue only fines or treatment), and with the money you save there you can run this safe injection site and many more - and still have enough left over to give the MPs their much needed raises..;)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
spaboy said:
I see this as the biggest benefit the program would deliver. As part of a bigger plan I can see where it fits in.

And you're right that insofar as the site is currently running against the grain of our general approach to drug use that it will not be as efficient as it could be under another paradigm. The "bigger plan" is lacking, but this could be the kind of inroad that leads to a "bigger plan".

These kinds of things are not going to be profitable businesses, but it comes down to what we consider a worthwhile expenditure in our society. We've decided that having traffic lights is important, even though they cost money. What do we think about the value of treating drug users from a health/harm reduction approach?
 

spaboy

TRIBE Member
I'm not griping about tax payers dollars being spent on the program, I'm saying that there is only so much budget & a portion of that is being allocated to this program. When it could be allocated to helping ppl who want to stop. That's my biggest issue but you make a good arguement
 

MissBlu

TRIBE Member
spaboy said:
I'm not griping about tax payers dollars being spent on the program, I'm saying that there is only so much budget & a portion of that is being allocated to this program. When it could be allocated to helping ppl who want to stop. That's my biggest issue but you make a good arguement


there is much more in the way of resources and help for people who want to stop. it's not like all the money is going to this program.

for the addicts who don't want to stop - this is pretty much there only option, sometimes to even reach out to them at all.
 

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
wanna drive a car= taxed to death

wanna get high = gubment tripping over themselves to make it safe and easy


wanna go to uni/college = huge debt

commit a crime = get free uni/college degree


work your ass off = taxed to death and treated like shit

dont wanna work = gubment tripping over themselves to give you free housing/booze/smokes/food..etc



when i have kids and it is time for them to go to college or uni, im gonna tell them to do a nice armed robbery and get a free education and walk out of prison with more help then if they did it on their own

do gooders will be tripping over themselves to get them the job they want
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

MissBlu

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
wanna drive a car= taxed to death

wanna get high = gubment tripping over themselves to make it safe and easy


wanna go to uni/college = huge debt

commit a crime = get free uni/college degree


work your ass off = taxed to death and treated like shit

dont wanna work = gubment tripping over themselves to give you free housing/booze/smokes/food..etc



when i have kids and it is time for them to go to college or uni, im gonna tell them to do a nice armed robbery and get a free education and walk out of prison with more help then if they did it on their own

do gooders will be tripping over themselves to get them the job they want

you really do not have a clue do you?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
wanna drive a car= taxed to death

wanna get high = gubment tripping over themselves to make it safe and easy

The only people trying to make it safe live in Vancouver, and the federal government was actually looking at returning that one locality to a place where "safe and easy" no longer applied...

I don't wanna drive a car, and I'm still taxed to death, but I understand the value of having well-maintained roads, traffic lights, a police presence on the roads. Maybe you'd be happier paying less taxes and driving in a Road Warrior world...

basketballjones said:
wanna go to uni/college = huge debt

commit a crime = get free uni/college degree

I share your concern regarding tuition and wish the government subsidized it more... but then again - where would those subsidies come from? You guessed it, tax dollars. Seems your desire to not be "taxed to death" conflicts with your desire for lower tuition...

As for your simplistic "committ a crime = get free degree" meme, I for one believe in a rehabilitative system of justice, and if education in prisons means lower rates of recidivism (which many studies have concluded*), then doesn't education in prison represent a savings to society?

basketballjones said:
work your ass off = taxed to death and treated like shit

dont wanna work = gubment tripping over themselves to give you free housing/booze/smokes/food..etc

To this I don't really know what to say, except that a little edjumacation might help you. That line seems like something cooked up in a Mike Harris strategy meeting... Arguments from emotion rather than fact (their hyping up of welfare fraud didn't match with the facts: retailer tax fraud was more frequent).

So all I gather from your screed here is that you're opposed to Insite because it represents the gubm'int making drug use "safe and easy" while you have to pay taxes: "I pay taxes, and I'd rather have programs like this axed to save money".

There's much better places to hit with that axe though, and I wonder if your primary reason for opposing Insite is born more of emotion than it is of any substantive argument (if there was one there in your post, I missed it). One of the many arguments for a harm reduction approach is to save tax dollars, which could then be used to lower tuition costs, or build more roads, or give higher tax credits for the purchase of green automobiles...


-----------------
*Footnote to education and recidivism, from the last of the links there:

On the other side of the controversy, a total of 97 articles published between 1969 and 1993 were abstracted by researchers who examined the relationship between correctional education and recidivism levels.7 The results reveal "solid support for a positive relationship between correctional education and [lower] recidivism." In the 97 articles, 83 (85%) reported documented evidence of recidivism control through correctional education, while only 14 (15%) reported a negative relationship between correctional education and reduced recidivism​
 
Last edited:

Flashy_McFlash

Well-Known TRIBEr
You can't possibly think that the Right Wing Rudebwoy is going to read all that.

If you can't summarize it in a platitude, it's like arguing with a box of Frankenberry.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Hey - I figure I owe him the benefit of the doubt that he - like the poor addicts in Vancouver's east side - can one day overcome his ignorance as I hope the addicts will overcome their addictions....
 

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
MissBlu said:
you really do not have a clue do you?
clue as to?

laughing at do gooders who fill themselves with pride at keeping ppl on the street or using drugs by "helping" them?

ppl dont get off drugs by being talked to or given a clean place to get high

do you even know a junkie, or had to deal with one?

and i dont mean watching a robert downie jr movie either
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
Ya - and I was still havin this on the backburner - if the main argument against the site is going to be one of saving taxpayer's dollars when it comes to drug use, then why is this site the first thing on the chopping block, and not possession laws?

They represent a far greater drain (almost incalculably moreso) on our resources than one safe injection site. If saving money is your biggest concern, cut out the imprisonment and court time for possession (or consider streamlined "drug courts" that issue only fines or treatment), and with the money you save there you can run this safe injection site and many more - and still have enough left over to give the MPs their much needed raises..;)
possession laws are a joke, unless you are carrying some major weight, not to mention a drain on the courts and other resources



im all for trying to get them help, but ppl seem to forget that ppl just arent going to up and quit because someone chats with them or tells them its bad
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
ppl dont get off drugs by being talked to or given a clean place to get high

Right, so might as well throw them in prison where we all know there is no drug use.

Oh wait, scratch that, looks like drug use is rampant in prisons.

Man, "do gooders" are so irritating aren't they? How can they possibly argue for safe injection sites and a harm reduction model when prohibition has been so darned effective?

I can't buy a gram of green to save my life, if only that War on Drugs hadn't been so damned good at getting people off of drugs!!
 

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
Right, so might as well throw them in prison where we all know there is no drug use.

Oh wait, scratch that, looks like drug use is rampant in prisons.

Man, "do gooders" are so irritating aren't they? How can they possibly argue for safe injection sites and a harm reduction model when prohibition has been so darned effective?

I can't buy a gram of green to save my life, if only that War on Drugs hadn't been so damned good at getting people off of drugs!!
i didnt say anything about throwing them in prison, but good of you to leap to that conclusion!!

until the person on drugs actually wants to get off drugs, no amount of anything is going to get them off them is what i said above

my family has been trying to get my cousin off of crack for a long time now, rehab, steady support, literally anything she needs....all to no effect

she still thinks of getting high as a party(her words), until the day comes when she thinks otherwise, all we can do is catch her when she falls, and she has done that many, many times
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
im all for trying to get them help, but ppl seem to forget that ppl just arent going to up and quit because someone chats with them or tells them its bad

What "ppl"? I think if you talk to most harm reduction advocates they'll tell you that they know how low the chances are in fully preventing a relapse, given the tangled web of psychological/physical addiction and the sociological pressures that engender drug use.

Their argument is not that "chatting" will result in lower drug use but that on a model/model comparison, more will get off drugs in a harm reduction approach than will get off in a War on Drugs approach... And the other point they have in their favour is that as long as addiction continues to be a scourge, it will be one with less of an impact on society in a harm reduction model than in the current one (ie, well even if Joe Heroin is gonna be using a few years more, at least he has free access to safe needles and educational resources to make his dangerous habit a little bit safer).

In fact, I think if there's one thing everyone agrees on, harm reduction "ppl" and War on Drugs "ppl" alike, is that getting people off of drugs isn't easy...
 
Last edited:

MissBlu

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
clue as to?

laughing at do gooders who fill themselves with pride at keeping ppl on the street or using drugs by "helping" them?

ppl dont get off drugs by being talked to or given a clean place to get high

do you even know a junkie, or had to deal with one?

and i dont mean watching a robert downie jr movie either

yeah i do.
maybe read the article and do some research. sorry, but your post was full of shit.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

MissBlu

TRIBE Member
basketballjones said:
how so?


i have done actual hands on research, you?

tell me of your time with junkies and such, im all ears


what does that have anything to do with this thread?

it's about safe injection sites, not my personal dealings with a junkie family member.

read your original post which is full of shit, and was clarified by praktik, and try again.
 

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
MissBlu said:
what does that have anything to do with this thread?

it's about safe injection sites, not my personal dealings with a junkie family member.

read your original post which is full of shit, and was clarified by praktik, and try again.
my original post was tongue in cheek and facetious

look those words up then continue to argue against a semi joke thread, then re read what i have also posted and then answer the q asked of you

or are you another one of the blowhard self important do gooders with ZERO real experience with the issue being discussed

and how you can see a disconnect between junkies and save injections sites is beyond me, without one you dont have the other...mkay
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I remember in this undergrad law class I took the topic of prohibition of marijuana came up.

I remember one classmate, very emotional, loudly proclaiming that she would never want to see marijuana legalized because she had an "uncle that started using and he got addicted and he was never the same"...

So because she has a weak-willed uncle with psychological issues, we should never consider legalizing the weed...

Basketballjones and his crack-addicted relative kind of strike me as the same kind of argument. While his reminder that addiction is a tough thing to overcome is a welcome one, the example of his crack-addicted sister is not something upon which policy should be based.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top