Safe Injection Sites

[thirdhour]

Rob, I agree with you in some ways, but not in others. The thing is, traditional treatment methods AREN'T WORKING. It's not like this has never been tried before, we have examples of these types of programs working in Europe and Australia. An example of Venom's is that it will encourage more people to do drugs. We have seen that this is not the case at all. The drug rate has gone down and the healing rate up.

It may be hypocritical, but at least the government is dealing with reality. Instead of ignoring the problem and pretending it doesn’t exist or just letting their citizens die, they’re attempting to find a solution. The government is acting more like a concerned parent trying to help their children get better and find their way out of the problem then just punishing anyone who has fallen into this deadly cycle of abuse. There are all sorts of other problems associated with drug abuse, including spousal and child abuse, poverty etc. that also need to be looked at in the whole picture. Drug users are people, not just criminals.

I think this should be treated as a medical issue, not a legal one. Sticking people in jail is not going to fix anything. Besides, it would be impossible to get them all in jail. I have heard that more people come out of jail hooked on drugs than go in.

You all say that we should just get people off of drugs. We've been trying that for decades. It's not working. In a magical world, we would send them to rehab clinics and they would pop out a couple months later, perfectly cured. It doesn't work like that. People don't wake up one morning after doing hard drugs for years, and suddenly decide "Today is the day I'm going to stop" and never touch the stuff again. It's a physical addiction, a disease that takes steps to heal. They have to make up their minds to be strong against the drugs, and decide that they need to turn their lifes around.

Think about this. When do people start falling into this lifestyle? They aren’t going along perfectly happy never having done drugs before and start doing heroin or coke one day. Most likely, unemployment and no or bad housing will lead to it, but I have a feeling taking that final step to actually doing heroin would HAVE to be in the company of other users. Someone would bring some out, you’d try it, and before you knew it, you were hooked. I’m not kidding myself, obviously not everyone would use the sites, but at least some would. Suddenly a few fewer people are doing it on the streets, with kids watching, and new people wouldn’t be trying it because they simply wouldn’t have the opportunity. There would be a break in the cycle, because new people wouldn’t start.

This brings up what Rob (Axtech), Alan and few others brought up. Let them fend for themselves, because they’re the ones that are doing it to themselves. This doesn’t solve anything. Fine, those people die, and a new generation of users start. This didn’t pop up overnight. It’s been happening for decades and the problem just keeps building up until now. Now we’ve realized that this problem isn’t just going to go away.

Clean needles are something thats important not just for the person thats using them, but for the general public. I strongly beleive that the HIV rate going down can only be a good thing for everyone. HIV is a problem that will not simply affect a small sector of people that we'd rather not think about because it doesnt concern us.

These are health facilities. Places where people with a medical condition (however self-caused it is) can come and feel safe. They are not removing any of the risks associated with simply using the drugs, only the diseases that come along for the ride. Think about it, not only are they removing the risk of getting HIV from themselves, but what if they have it? Because they won’t be sharing needles, they won’t be killing anyone else.

Safe injection sites are taking people off the streets. They are not encouraging drug activity, simply acknowledging that this is a problem, and trying to find a solution. Nothing has worked, why not give this a try. That’s all I’m saying.

(Jesus Christ, this thing is long. It took me forever to write, and now I don't feel like going over it to see if it makes sense. Probably doesn't but meh, what can ya do?)

[Bandalero]

The problem is the drug itself. We should remove the demand for drugs. This is done by going after the source. The growers, the manufacturers, and the traffickers and dealers. The drug war in the US isn't a war at all. It’s a joke. What we need to do is make the jail sentences for dealing and trafficking tougher, and the violent traffickers should basically meet their fate (death) and we should publicly show the world that drug dealers and traffickers are not to be tolerated at all.

Why is it that Saudi Arabia can have public executions and the rest of the 49 states get pissed because TexAs has the gumption and the balls to kill as many people as we do? Violent drug dealers and traffickers and cartels working in the US should be publicly hanged and/or executed. Let the buzzards and the wild animals get to their bodies, they got to eat too. That’ll convince the people looking to make a quick buck on people’s weaknesses to stop, and actually get a real job. It won’t stop them all, but if you think about it, it will raise the price for such daring risk taking. We should protect our weak, just like Andrew Jackson said. It’s our duty as a society that we should. But we should not keep them weak, we should help them by keeping their poisons away from them.

[Dr. Hobo]

Has anyone here heard of natural selection? These people are weak and have problems, and this is how they're done away with. It sounds harsh, but it's the truth.

why waste billions of dollars investing on new drugs then?
why bother spending time, effort and mony on devising new and better ways to prevent bacterial contamination of food and food sources?

natural selection
n.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

by that definition from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural%20selection

drug use would cease to exist once the current "crop" of drug users are eliminated .. in this case by themselves.. which is a pile of horse shit..
if every druggie currently alive dies.. will drug use cease to existt? fuck no.. it'll exist and this way atleast helps to ensure levels of various diseases are somewhat controlled..

considering the economic impact (taking into account the fact here in canada.. we have public health care) of diseases that are transmitted in this manner, reducing the #'s by any amount is worthwhile.. and IF this DOES work to help rehabilitate people like studies in Europe as Yannic has given sources for.. then its worth it cost wise..

and Reno.. i agree the drugs themselves are the problem but its not like law enforcement and such just sits on their collective asses and plays cards instead of doing something about it.. its not the easiest of things to fight and theyre trying.. they may not be winning but theyre fighting..

as for the saudi arabia comment.. there are people who feel that what they isnt right.. nor is what texas does.. so that doesnt have much bearing here

[Bandalero]

why should law enforcement have to fight the new breed of trafficer? I say ARMY should do it. Mexican army defectors have entered the drug trade in mexico, so let's see who's gonna win this war now, Zetas from a mexican battalion or US ARMY? who's gonna try and smuggle drugs if bodies of past trafficers are left decomposing up as a warning? if they want to play hard ball, by leaving women and children out on Mexican desert out to decompose, then they deserve the same. when lands used to grow pot or opium in the states gets taken away, they'll know what's up.

the border is relatively poor, and drugs are the cause. what you have is government in one country bought off by drug money to look the other way and make safe passage for the trafficing of said drugs, another country spending money non-efficiently to keep the drugs off the streets, and in another you have government that spends money to make users safe with their drug use.

[Dr. Hobo]

by making the users safe, the hope and theory is that the users willingly seek help and get themselves off the drugs.. if that were the case and drug use DOES drop, then it goes right into the pocket books of trafficers.

and even if drug use itself doesnt drop.. the spread of diseases should amongst drugs users should decrease..

A report published by UNAIDS and the WHO in December 2002, indicates that an estimated 42 million people in the world are living with HIV/AIDS, of whom 19.2 million are women and 3.2 million are children under 15 years of age. IDU is cited as one of the main modes of transmission for those living with HIV/AIDS in 7 of the 10 regions of the world and include North America, North Africa and Middle East, Western Europe and East Asia and Pacific. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the epidemic began relatively later than in other regions (early 1990's), IDU is listed as the single main mode of transmission in that region.19 Figure 3 shows the proportion of AIDS cases attributed to IDU in selected countries since 1995. While caution should be taken when comparing and interpreting data where surveillance systems may differ, it is interesting to note that while Canada is in the lower half of the graph, countries like Australia, Netherlands and UK have even lower proportions of reported AIDS cases attributed to IDU. While such ecological comparisons have their limitations, it may be related to the availability and acceptability of programs and services which advocate harm reduction within the IDU population in these countries. More research is needed to study the effectiveness of these programs and whether similar approaches could be applicable in the Canadian setting.

IDU stands for injecting drug users.. Aids isnt the only drug spread thru IDU and is a small example but taking that data into account.. it shows the high level of IDU caused or related cases of the disease world wide (approximately of course) and if the spread of diseases DO decrease.. thats one LESS problem and subsequent expense for the health care industry to deal with

[Bandalero]

by making the users safe, the hope and theory is that the users willingly seek help and get themselves off the drugs.. if that were the case and drug use DOES drop, then it goes right into the pocket books of trafficers.

and even if drug use itself doesnt drop.. the spread of diseases should amongst drugs users should decrease..

A report published by UNAIDS and the WHO in December 2002, indicates that an estimated 42 million people in the world are living with HIV/AIDS, of whom 19.2 million are women and 3.2 million are children under 15 years of age. IDU is cited as one of the main modes of transmission for those living with HIV/AIDS in 7 of the 10 regions of the world and include North America, North Africa and Middle East, Western Europe and East Asia and Pacific. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the epidemic began relatively later than in other regions (early 1990's), IDU is listed as the single main mode of transmission in that region.19 Figure 3 shows the proportion of AIDS cases attributed to IDU in selected countries since 1995. While caution should be taken when comparing and interpreting data where surveillance systems may differ, it is interesting to note that while Canada is in the lower half of the graph, countries like Australia, Netherlands and UK have even lower proportions of reported AIDS cases attributed to IDU. While such ecological comparisons have their limitations, it may be related to the availability and acceptability of programs and services which advocate harm reduction within the IDU population in these countries. More research is needed to study the effectiveness of these programs and whether similar approaches could be applicable in the Canadian setting.

IDU stands for injecting drug users.. Aids isnt the only drug spread thru IDU and is a small example but taking that data into account.. it shows the high level of IDU caused or related cases of the disease world wide (approximately of course) and if the spread of diseases DO decrease.. thats one LESS problem and subsequent expense for the health care industry to deal with

ok, some people will stop doing drugs.....but let's be honest here...in this system right now, how many would quit? and with the influx of drugs comming in just how many would start? the later number is going to be bigger, especially since the population is growing.

if you make the war on drugs an actual war....with cartel men dying and lands confisacted, there won't be much use for siringes on the streets. the whole number would decline. both the number of users and the number of IDU's. both numbers dropping should be the goal.

[Dr. Hobo]

i agree with that but it has to come to the individual countries where they are grown.. you cant go around killing and blowing up every country where a drug is grown/made.. i mean.. if columbia chooses to not reel in cartels.. in the long run.. its their choice.. not ours.. we cant just bomb them and take over... its a dangerous precedent to set.. i mean.. if we could do that.. and claim "drugs" is the reason.. whats to stop the mexicans from bombing the states and claiming "theyre stealing our workers.. we're doing it in our best interest"
you can reprimand a country or whatever.. set up sanctions etc. but there is only so much one country can do

[Venom]

Wow, and I thought Jim was the only unbelievable piece of shit on the board. Why do you fucking assholes have such a knack for bringing up my parents? Wow, my parents snort coke, ha ha, don't fucking talk about it you stupid bitch.

(Wow I'm siding with Alan too......whats this board coming too?) What Alex said was WAY out of line!! I say things no where near as offensive and everyone attacks me and wants me banned. Alex calls Alans parents "druggies" (which is offensive) and the only thing someone (other than Alan) says about it was that it "bringing up your parents was a bad idea, and it was rude in a way. But i don't think alex meant it that way." Rude in a way?? What other way could she have meant??? So there are ways that it wasn't rude?? Please explain how that could possibly not be rudeand how using THAT language meant something else? She didn't even use "politically correct" language. "Druggie"?? Come on at least say something to the effect " or is it because you have past addiction in your family". At least that isn't as much of a blatent attack. Its really sick how some people on this board can act like complete imbeciles and no one says a word, but when someone like me who tends to disagree with (as someone put it) "non-traditional" views I get crucified because I'm supposedly out of line. Alex is consistantly irrational and when she can't support her argument she lashes out without it becoming an issue. Its not right, but I guess the people that is directed out have to protect their own (anti-american, anti-Bush, etc). I hardly ever agree with Alan, Axtech, etc but I will support them when they are obviously the target of this kind of despicable, and hateful ranting!

[Axtech]

On the subject of "traditional" rehab methods not working... How about spending this money on making them work.

This isn't a rehab clinic we're talking about here. This is a place to take drugs. You go there, shoot up, get high, come down, and leave. Rehab is getting people off drugs, not giving them somewhere to do it legally.

[Venom]

This is a place to take drugs. You go there, shoot up, get high, come down, and leave.

Do they even have to stay there the whole time they are high? Of the articles I have read no where does it say that. Can someone verify this with a source?

[nelison]

Wow, and I thought Jim was the only unbelievable piece of shit on the board.

I could have sworn that I sincerely apologized for my comments... *checks* yep I sure did, but you continue to hold grudges. There's no need to bring me up in a conversation I have no part of. It's quite pathetic if you ask me, and that comment is very uncalled for.

Sorry for ruining the flow of the thread everyone... I just stumbled upon that and felt the need to post. Carry On.

[thirdhour]

This is a place to take drugs. You go there, shoot up, get high, come down, and leave.

Do they even have to stay there the whole time they are high? Of the articles I have read no where does it say that. Can someone verify this with a source?

Yes, they do. Fuck, where did that article go? Anyway, it said that they would shoot up in a mirrored room that had room for like 5 people or something, then they would go to a 'chill-out' room (cant remember what they called it) where they could talk to counsellers and such. Once I find the article, I'll post the link.


Another thing, safe injection sites are NOT replacing treatment facilities. They are simply a step between, trying to keep people at least slightly healthy and encouraging them to get help. It is taking people that are dying on the street, preventing their deaths, and maybe getting them some help. That's all.

[Venom]

Yes, they do. Fuck, where did that article go? Anyway, it said that they would shoot up in a mirrored room that had room for like 5 people or something, then they would go to a 'chill-out' room (cant remember what they called it) where they could talk to counsellers and such. Once I find the article, I'll post the link.

Well if that is true its both a good thing and bad. The good is that at least they aren't letting them out on the streets (I still strongly disagree with the whole thing), however that said I think the only people this will attract are the more intelligent users who probably use clean needles as it is. They claim this is to reduce the spread of HIV, but the people who share needles are the ones who really don't care and aren't gonna wanna sit in a room by themselves to get high. So the people that will use it are the same people that will use more traditional detox sites and the government is just risking itself by supporting drug use. Just my take on it but thats the people I see taking advantage of this. Hardcore drug users don't give a flip about spreading HIV, they're gonna die and they don't care who they bring down. Those are the people that are dangerous and not likely to use these sites.

[Bandalero]

i agree with that but it has to come to the individual countries where they are grown.. you cant go around killing and blowing up every country where a drug is grown/made.. i mean.. if columbia chooses to not reel in cartels.. in the long run.. its their choice.. not ours.. we cant just bomb them and take over... its a dangerous precedent to set.. i mean.. if we could do that.. and claim "drugs" is the reason.. whats to stop the mexicans from bombing the states and claiming "theyre stealing our workers.. we're doing it in our best interest"
you can reprimand a country or whatever.. set up sanctions etc. but there is only so much one country can do

it's happening anyway. there are numerous high speed chases, and gun fights along the border, where Mexican Army personel are called in to fight drug gangs. so what's so different?

I'm talking about the US Army keeping drugs off the US border, not invading columbia. same goes for Mexican troops, taking drugs off the streets and taking monetary assets from drug lords and dividing up amongst themselves. Make it a real war not some godamn political platform that makes everyone feel good about combating drugs in a weak un-efficient way.

[happening fish]

Sorry, Alan. Guess I can be a dick sometimes too.

And just for the record, there was no slight or insult intended, and I'm not sure where the percieved insult lay, I was actually wondering if your personal experiences affected your opinion on this topic. However, since you obviously took offence, then I apologize for my words.

[doug]

So much to reply to!

A few things i'd like to say first. Why does there have to be a war on drugs? what is the matter with drugs? what is immoral about drug use? why should drugs be illegal? can anybody tell me?

next. setting up these sites does 3 things.
1) it addresses an obvious problem
2) it makes the government look hypocritical
3) it lays the burden of the drug users squarely on soceity at large.

here's how a little liberty can fix the whole damn thing. all you have to do is legalize, legalize, legalize. then a big corporation, let's call them "Doug's Drugs" (heh) can come in and start mass producing higher quality, less dangerous drugs. The government can come in and set up a bunch of regulations like they do for food - now drugs will come in packages with things like their purity and ingredients and most importantly, SIDE EFFECTS, listed.

Doug's Drugs will make sure that it creates the safest possible product... and we'll pay for a safe injection site to be built without one dime of tax money! that way our consumers can come into a "drug" store and buy our product, then go into the next room and shoot up on clean needles.

i know reno thinks different, but there is no way a junkie would rather buy his product at a higher price and with far more unknowns from some street dealer then buy it from me at a lower price with more guarantees with respect to quality and safety.

there would be no need for the growers & sellers to do anything illegal. they could open up legit businesses. they wouldn't have to kill anybody.

my solution does not even involve abolishing the government. in fact, i even allow the government to meddle. this solution is totally doable.

the point is, the state looks ridiculous by saying "don't use drugs (but here's a site for you to use drugs at)." they should just say "what the hell do i care if you shoot up? go crazy, man!" they don't look like hypocrites, druggies get their shit in a safe, cheap and dependable mannor, and i make a million goddamn dollars.

any questions?

[Dr. Hobo]

i agree with that but it has to come to the individual countries where they are grown.. you cant go around killing and blowing up every country where a drug is grown/made.. i mean.. if columbia chooses to not reel in cartels.. in the long run.. its their choice.. not ours.. we cant just bomb them and take over... its a dangerous precedent to set.. i mean.. if we could do that.. and claim "drugs" is the reason.. whats to stop the mexicans from bombing the states and claiming "theyre stealing our workers.. we're doing it in our best interest"
you can reprimand a country or whatever.. set up sanctions etc. but there is only so much one country can do

it's happening anyway. there are numerous high speed chases, and gun fights along the border, where Mexican Army personel are called in to fight drug gangs. so what's so different?

I'm talking about the US Army keeping drugs off the US border, not invading columbia. same goes for Mexican troops, taking drugs off the streets and taking monetary assets from drug lords and dividing up amongst themselves. Make it a real war not some godamn political platform that makes everyone feel good about combating drugs in a weak un-efficient way.

sorry i misunderstood our convo from msn last night apparently
but im all for the fighting it on home soil and all .. but with drugs like cocaine for example with the cartels in columbia (and else where of course but since its most prevalent there im going with that) .. what do you do or suggest? the government is trying to fight them but with the amount of money and all that they have its not easy.. hell i believe i heard/read somewhere about the US govt helping out the Columbians with the fight against the cartels and such but theyre still not making that much progress..

Well if that is true its both a good thing and bad. The good is that at least they aren't letting them out on the streets (I still strongly disagree with the whole thing), however that said I think the only people this will attract are the more intelligent users who probably use clean needles as it is. They claim this is to reduce the spread of HIV, but the people who share needles are the ones who really don't care and aren't gonna wanna sit in a room by themselves to get high. So the people that will use it are the same people that will use more traditional detox sites and the government is just risking itself by supporting drug use. Just my take on it but thats the people I see taking advantage of this. Hardcore drug users don't give a flip about spreading HIV, they're gonna die and they don't care who they bring down. Those are the people that are dangerous and not likely to use these sites.

although the assumption of the users being the "intelligent" is fairly safe.. it (for what should be obvious reasons that nothing follows the "rules" exactly when it comes to human nature) wont be true and just the fact that they MAY take say 5% of those "unintelligent" users off the streets and into the a more controlled area where they can talk to counsellors and be gently pushed into more traditional forms or methods of treatment is worthwhile.. i mean.. if you can steer 50 people away from drugs and into the mainstream soceity, at the very least, thats money the govt saves from healthcare etc etc..

this care isnt just for HIV but for a lot of diseases that are communicable by sharing diseases so if it reduces the rates then its good.. its highest amongst IDU's at "unacceptable levels" according to the Health Canada (its in the link i had above somewhere) .. and lowering that is important.


and finally before i get back to anatomy and the wonderful world of microtubules and centrioles.. although poorly worded, what alex asked is valid, i mean (sorry for bringing it up again alan but to make me not look like an asshole and all i have to mention this).. if i had been personally affected by drugs like alan has, i would personally not think favourable for this kinda facility.. but not having been affected allows me to have a more "detached" approach.. thats all she was asking.. lay off her guys.. i agree her wording was poor and all but her asking the question does have some merit for the reasons i mentioned above..
Once again.. sorry alan for bringing it up.. and lets not make this thread a bash ______ thread and actually continue to discuss this because it IS of importance.


oh and since i just noticed this..
rob, traditional rehab only works when ppl go there.. this is an intermediate essentially.. you cant force someone to goto the rehab.. here you subliminally convince them to basically

[thirdhour]

I was waiting for you, Doug. And I must say, you did surprise me. I didnt think you would ever let the goverment involved in anything.

Question: Would it be illegal to buy drugs and take them out? The reason, as far as I see, that drugs are illegal, is to protect people, including children. If this wasn't illegal, then the users could easily bring them to schools, anywhere else children are ect.


This appears to be a perfect solution, and it does have many benifits, the only real big problem I see with it is that because they are making money off of their customers, there is no reason for them EVER to encourage them to move away from drugs. No one will move from this to centers where they can get better. (rehab or whatever it may be). They will control the market, and 'discourage' clinics from getting ahold of thier clientel. I'm assuming in this situation, the rehab would also be run by private companies?

[doug]

You see, i know saying "throw out the state" is too easy & too extreme. I instead will settle for picking off needless laws one by one.

now, to answer your questions.

I am suggesting the total legalization of all drugs. But, if Doug's Drugs started sending pushers to grade schools, parents might start a boycott! even hardcore junkies would say "I'm not buying my shit from those assholes! Let's go over to Pete's Product instead! They don't sell to kids"

bad publicity = less money. and i imagine the state would set up a legal age, too, where you'd have to be 18+ to buy drugs legally.

i'm also sure that the government would probably want drugs used only in designated centers (ie bar/ safe injection site) or your home. It would be just like bars. Doug's Drugs would open up a night club where you can smoke pot and take acid and then party!

you're right that Doug's Drugs probably wouldn't rush people to get clean. but our objective, of course, would be to get safer and less addictive drugs to the consumer. That's how we could maximize our profit - we don't want our target market dying because of what we sell.

[Venom]

Doug you forget that people will still need some money for these drugs and their addiction will force them to do anything to get that money. Therefore there will still be robberies, murders, muggings, etc. Still crime.