support Insite (easy!)

[Senior]

Editorial | News | The Vancouver Sun

vote yes to support Insite.

[tiedye]

95.09% voted 'Yes' so far. Nicely done.

[Some dude]

What if I'm morally opposed to supporting drug addiction?

[ebbomega]

^ You need to rethink your morals.

Or are you morally opposed to the prevention of spreading disease?

[GSG9]

im in the same boat somedude, but as dave said, are we opposed to the spreading of disease.

i dont agree with helping users use, but i REALLY dont agree with having streets full of sickly people and footing the bill for fixing them when they get all fucked in the blood.

wieght it out objectively and youll probably come up with a simmilar answer as 95% of other locals.

[tiedye]

It's not about promoting drug use. It's about promoting a safer lifestyle for those that are in the thralls of drug use. One step toward a healthier lifestyle.

[ebbomega]

The spirit of harm reduction states that if people so desire, they're going to get their hands on the drugs regardless. As long as we can minimize the health impact that this takes, then regardless of what your standpoint on drug use is we can at least bring down the number of problems it causes.

[frogprincess]

Originally Posted by Some dude

What if I'm morally opposed to supporting drug addiction?

People who do not do drugs live in those neighborhoods too. Children walk to school along those streets, and play in parks nearby.

Insite gives addicts a place to use their drugs and dispose of paraphernalia appropriately.

You can morally oppose supporting drug addition, but why would you be opposed to protecting those that DO NOT USE?

[Grapes]

Some dude is a troll.

Look, I can play the troll game too! If you say "don't you want to stop the spread of disease", then I counter with:

"The best way to stop the spread of disease would be to just let those people die off"

OOOOOH shocking! Controversial. Except I don't believe a word of what I typed. And neither does he.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by Grapes

OOOOOH shocking! Controversial. Except I don't believe a word of what I typed. And neither does he.

Almost. I post what I believe without the fluff that would normally accompany it, which frequently results in delicious bad karma for me.

I really do not like the idea on insite. Do I want all drug addicts to die of HIV or some other illness? Of course not. Do I think we should make it easier for them to continue their habit? Also no. By all means, implement a needle exchange program and make rehab abundantly available, but giving them a warm and comfortable place to shoot up takes it too far in my opinion.

I expect addicts to take some of the initiative to get clean. If they can't be bothered enough to care, neither can I.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by Some dude

Almost. I post what I believe without the fluff that would normally accompany it, which frequently results in delicious bad karma for me.

Oooooh you're bold and daring. We're all soooo impressed.

There's a knob like you on every site, usually 3 or 4.

[Some dude]

What makes you think Im trying to impress anyone? Why would I attempt to stay anonymous if this was the case?

Besides, this thread isn't about me (as awesome as I might be) it's about Insite. Yay or nay Mr. Ceiling Cat?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Some dude

Almost. I post what I believe without the fluff that would normally accompany it, which frequently results in delicious bad karma for me.

I really do not like the idea on insite. Do I want all drug addicts to die of HIV or some other illness? Of course not. Do I think we should make it easier for them to continue their habit? Also no. By all means, implement a needle exchange program and make rehab abundantly available, but giving them a warm and comfortable place to shoot up takes it too far in my opinion.

I expect addicts to take some of the initiative to get clean. If they can't be bothered enough to care, neither can I.

How else do you implement a needle exchange program effectively? What do you want them to do with their needles after they're done shooting up? Having them do it inside the facility means that every step along the way is controlled, including the disposal.

Would you rather that they just have a hand-out window so that all the junkies can leave their needles lying around the street?

Your opinions are justified but unfortunately they're also very ignorant of what happens. Most of the facility of Insite is actually geared towards social workers and addiction therapy. The place isn't exactly an opium den.

[tiedye]

Oh man oh man do I wish I was a gov't funded opium den. Oneirogasm.

[ebbomega]

How would you be a den?

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

How else do you implement a needle exchange program effectively? What do you want them to do with their needles after they're done shooting up? Having them do it inside the facility means that every step along the way is controlled, including the disposal.

Would you rather that they just have a hand-out window so that all the junkies can leave their needles lying around the street?

Your opinions are justified but unfortunately they're also very ignorant of what happens. Most of the facility of Insite is actually geared towards social workers and addiction therapy. The place isn't exactly an opium den.

Thing about a needle exchange is that they need to return the old needle to get a new one, thus ensuring proper disposal. Another alternative would be to provide bleach or rubbing alcohol and training on how to sterilize a needle. I recall hearing of some prisons doing this.

If the safe injection part of Insite is just a small part of the facility, then getting rid of it would not have a huge impact on operations.

The safest thing for addicts would be to have a government controlled facility selling the drugs to ensure purity and controlled dosage, and nurses administering the drugs. Obviously that isn't going to happen anytime soon, but where's the line? Would it be okay for nurses to give the injection? How about a drug exchange? Turn in a dose of drugs purchased off the street and receive an equal dosage of high purity product.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Some dude

Thing about a needle exchange is that they need to return the old needle to get a new one, thus ensuring proper disposal. Another alternative would be to provide bleach or rubbing alcohol and training on how to sterilize a needle. I recall hearing of some prisons doing this.

Works great in a system where you're tracking every single person and you always know where everybody is.

If the safe injection part of Insite is just a small part of the facility, then getting rid of it would not have a huge impact on operations.

Huh? You make no sense. The needle exchange exists to help prevent the spread of disease. This doesn't happen through counselling, I'm sorry.

The safest thing for addicts would be to have a government controlled facility selling the drugs to ensure purity and controlled dosage, and nurses administering the drugs. Obviously that isn't going to happen anytime soon, but where's the line? Would it be okay for nurses to give the injection? How about a drug exchange? Turn in a dose of drugs purchased off the street and receive an equal dosage of high purity product.

You're not looking at it from a cost vs. benefit side. How much money do you think it would take to:
- legalise the drug trade (someone needs to legally be able to procure the drugs for the site to provide)
- nationalize the drug trade (will require tons of nationally-funded infrastructure in order to maintain demand)
- staff the facility with trained nurses (tend to cost a lot more than social workers)
- somehow find some way that you can be convinced that the dirty street-fare drugs that a junkie would bring in was stuff they actually purchased on the street and not just some vial of dirt water they pulled from the back alley so that the service wasn't just a handout service.

Now compare the cost of that vs. the cost of the current running facility, and ask yourself "How much more disease would we be preventing if we went down this other hypothetical route verses how much we stave off with the current system." You'll probably find that given your scenario there's an awful lot more cost and it's probably not worth our time and tax dollars.

But you're not talking about what's practical, you're talking about what's moral. This is the problem with moral righteousness.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Works great in a system where you're tracking every single person and you always know where everybody is.

Huh? You make no sense. The needle exchange exists to help prevent the spread of disease. This doesn't happen through counselling, I'm sorry.

But you're not talking about what's practical, you're talking about what's moral. This is the problem with moral righteousness.

1: No tracking required. Guy shows up, gives you a needle, you give him a clean one, he leaves. He doesn't give you a needle, you don't give him one.

2: Counseling is to get them off the drugs, the needle exchange is to prevent disease.

3: Now you're the one confusing me. Whether Insite is beneficial from a scientific viewpoint is not debatable unless all those studies are full of lies. The only thing worth discussion is the morality of it.

P.S. I believe most drugs are fairly easy to synthesize on a large scale if one does not need to worry about hiding it.

[tiedye]

Morals are subjective, which is why we resort to scientific and mathematical fact to determine whether something like this is beneficial to our society.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by tiedye

Morals are subjective, which is why we resort to scientific and mathematical fact to determine whether something like this is beneficial to our society.

I knew someone was going to say this.

Scientifically, there's no reason to not kill children born with cerebral palsy, or to have court-ordered sterilization based on genetic screening for diseases. We don't do things things only because of morality.

Science works for building airplanes and bridges, but not so well for other things.

[tiedye]

Please explain to me how science dictates that children born with cerebral palsy should be killed. I must have skipped class that day.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by tiedye

Please explain to me how science dictates that children born with cerebral palsy should be killed. I must have skipped class that day.

If Contribution to society < Cost to society then what possible reason could there be to keep them around? Didn't a pair of doctors have their application for immigration turned down because their daughter/sister has CP? Proof that without dealing with the moral issue of killing a human, the cost of 1 person with CP is greater than the contribution of 2 doctors (at least in the mind of Immigrations Canada).

[tiedye]

I still don't know where killing a child comes into this. That's just attempting to debase a contrary opinion via shock value.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Some dude

1: No tracking required. Guy shows up, gives you a needle, you give him a clean one, he leaves. He doesn't give you a needle, you don't give him one.

2: Counseling is to get them off the drugs, the needle exchange is to prevent disease.

3: Now you're the one confusing me. Whether Insite is beneficial from a scientific viewpoint is not debatable unless all those studies are full of lies. The only thing worth discussion is the morality of it.

P.S. I believe most drugs are fairly easy to synthesize on a large scale if one does not need to worry about hiding it.

1. Kinda dig that idea, except it still misses people. Those who don't have their own needles, therefore rely on other people's... those would be the folk who probably are highest risk for spreading disease

2. yes

3. point is that it's an issue of morality of sanctioning drug use vs. morality of letting disease spread. But once either of that side stops being practical (on one side disease runs rampant, on the other side we spend way too much dollars on administrating these social programs) we need to consider that we've wandered too far to one side.

As always, the moral high road is somewhere in between - a balance or a compromise. I think Insite provides that, but I also think it's way too swung in the direction of the anti-drug side, as I'm guessing more facilities like it will further improve the lifestyle on the DTES, from both a moral and a practical standpoint.

I don't say the points you're making aren't valid, but rather that they only look at the issue from one side, and that never comes to the right answer.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Some dude

I knew someone was going to say this.

Scientifically, there's no reason to not kill children born with cerebral palsy, or to have court-ordered sterilization based on genetic screening for diseases. We don't do things things only because of morality.

Yeah, there's plenty of scientific reasons that this is a bad idea. The first one is the concept of "error", and if you don't understand what that means in a scientific context then you shouldn't be making sweeping generalisations about science.