Controversial & Close to my Heart
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dancing in the Light
Posts: 61,504
Controversial & Close to my Heart
This is a study done on a safe-injection site funded by the Canadian Government in Vancouver, B.C. I have a family member who is working hard to reproduce something similar in another city and I know the amazing benefits of a Harm-Reduction Centre.
Deaths from drug overdose dropped dramatically in Vancouver’s troubled Downtown Eastside after Insite, Canada’s only supervised injection site, opened in 2003, according to major new research on the controversial facility. Vancouver’s mayor and public health experts say the body of research on Insite, further supported by the overdose findings, makes it clear that Toronto could benefit from a supervised consumption facility.
The study shows overdose deaths declined by 35 per cent after Insite opened its doors, a finding that experts say answers the final key question of whether the facility provides public health and community benefit. Previous studies have shown Insite has, among other things, got drug use off city streets, saved the health-care system millions of dollars and reduced the spread of infectious disease, including HIV.
In Toronto, debate on the issue is heating up with researchers investigating whether the city could benefit from supervised consumption facilities, staffed medical clinics where addicts can inject or use illicit drugs, including heroin and cocaine.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health & Human Rights, called the findings on Insite “impressive” and stated that supervised injection facilities “should be expanded to other affected sites in Canada, on the basis of the life-saving effects identified in Vancouver.”“[B]In medicine or in public health a 35 per cent reduction in mortality is a very large effect,” Beyrer told the Star. “When we see mortality rates for a disease or condition go down by 5 or 6 or 8 per cent it is big news . . . There are not many that give you a 35 per cent reduction in mortality over a relatively short time with what is basically a simple intervention.”
“Clearly the evidence is in: this is a facility that is saving people’s lives,” Kerr said. “The current government is ideologically opposed to this facility but really when it comes to matters of life and death we need to base our responses on the best available scientific evidence. In this case, it’s quite clear this facility is saving lives and closing it would mean people would die of essentially preventable overdoses.”
“The evidence in Vancouver suggests Toronto could benefit from such a site, not only the addicts themselves but the city as well,” he said, noting if a site opened in Toronto it would benefit from the same rigorous assessment given to Insite.
Kerr said Insite saves the health-care system thousands of dollars because drug overdoses are quickly managed within the facility and do not require costly ambulance and emergency services. Since it opened, Kerr said, Insite has treated more than 2,000 drug overdoses and has had no overdose deaths.
Deaths from drug overdose dropped dramatically in Vancouver’s troubled Downtown Eastside after Insite, Canada’s only supervised injection site, opened in 2003, according to major new research on the controversial facility. Vancouver’s mayor and public health experts say the body of research on Insite, further supported by the overdose findings, makes it clear that Toronto could benefit from a supervised consumption facility.
The study shows overdose deaths declined by 35 per cent after Insite opened its doors, a finding that experts say answers the final key question of whether the facility provides public health and community benefit. Previous studies have shown Insite has, among other things, got drug use off city streets, saved the health-care system millions of dollars and reduced the spread of infectious disease, including HIV.
In Toronto, debate on the issue is heating up with researchers investigating whether the city could benefit from supervised consumption facilities, staffed medical clinics where addicts can inject or use illicit drugs, including heroin and cocaine.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health & Human Rights, called the findings on Insite “impressive” and stated that supervised injection facilities “should be expanded to other affected sites in Canada, on the basis of the life-saving effects identified in Vancouver.”“[B]In medicine or in public health a 35 per cent reduction in mortality is a very large effect,” Beyrer told the Star. “When we see mortality rates for a disease or condition go down by 5 or 6 or 8 per cent it is big news . . . There are not many that give you a 35 per cent reduction in mortality over a relatively short time with what is basically a simple intervention.”
“Clearly the evidence is in: this is a facility that is saving people’s lives,” Kerr said. “The current government is ideologically opposed to this facility but really when it comes to matters of life and death we need to base our responses on the best available scientific evidence. In this case, it’s quite clear this facility is saving lives and closing it would mean people would die of essentially preventable overdoses.”
“The evidence in Vancouver suggests Toronto could benefit from such a site, not only the addicts themselves but the city as well,” he said, noting if a site opened in Toronto it would benefit from the same rigorous assessment given to Insite.
Kerr said Insite saves the health-care system thousands of dollars because drug overdoses are quickly managed within the facility and do not require costly ambulance and emergency services. Since it opened, Kerr said, Insite has treated more than 2,000 drug overdoses and has had no overdose deaths.
Garden Variety Addict
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lambertville, NJ
Posts: 310
There is a TV show called "The Beat" which documents the daily happenings of downtown Vancouver, often through the eyes of law enforcement. Sometimes they focus on the addict center, which you reference, Anna.
Vancouver has an incredibly large addict population, moreso percentage-wise than most U.S. cities, or so the ducumentary claims. They show the center itself, and the shooting area. Addicts can come to this place, and without fear of arrest or any other fear, peacefully inject themselves (as opposed to finding some dark alley or public rest room). They even have areas to rest until they're ready to stand again and walk out. They provide not only needles but cooking apparatus, alcohol swabs, cotton and bandages. They also offer drinks and if I recall correctly cookies and crackers. What they don't provide, of course, are the drugs themselves. The staff includes medical personnel in the event of a bad reaction or overdose. And I believe this is strictly for heroin addicts. I don't believe a crackhead can come in and smoke crack in peace. Or weed, or any other drug. The police take a "hands-off" policy regarding the facilty; they do not hassle or bust those coming in and out of the center. Or so they say. Who knows what really happens with the police.
They also have resources for those wishing to face recovery and end drug use. It's not affiliated with any recovery groups, but they have literature and phones for contacting groups and arranging attendance.
This program is of course very controversial and politically charged. Some say it only fosters continued and never-ending addiction. Regardless, numbers don't lie, unless someone changes the numbers, but if these numbers are in fact true there is no denying the benefits.
As for the U.S. I don't see programs like this becoming too popular. There remains a dark cloud of condemnation over addiction. The American public in general does not yet see addiction as a disease, they still regard it as a choice and because it is seen as choice, they cast judgment on the addict. Even if Americans could see the value in such a place, we still suffer from the "not in my neighborhood!" syndrome.
Vancouver has an incredibly large addict population, moreso percentage-wise than most U.S. cities, or so the ducumentary claims. They show the center itself, and the shooting area. Addicts can come to this place, and without fear of arrest or any other fear, peacefully inject themselves (as opposed to finding some dark alley or public rest room). They even have areas to rest until they're ready to stand again and walk out. They provide not only needles but cooking apparatus, alcohol swabs, cotton and bandages. They also offer drinks and if I recall correctly cookies and crackers. What they don't provide, of course, are the drugs themselves. The staff includes medical personnel in the event of a bad reaction or overdose. And I believe this is strictly for heroin addicts. I don't believe a crackhead can come in and smoke crack in peace. Or weed, or any other drug. The police take a "hands-off" policy regarding the facilty; they do not hassle or bust those coming in and out of the center. Or so they say. Who knows what really happens with the police.
They also have resources for those wishing to face recovery and end drug use. It's not affiliated with any recovery groups, but they have literature and phones for contacting groups and arranging attendance.
This program is of course very controversial and politically charged. Some say it only fosters continued and never-ending addiction. Regardless, numbers don't lie, unless someone changes the numbers, but if these numbers are in fact true there is no denying the benefits.
As for the U.S. I don't see programs like this becoming too popular. There remains a dark cloud of condemnation over addiction. The American public in general does not yet see addiction as a disease, they still regard it as a choice and because it is seen as choice, they cast judgment on the addict. Even if Americans could see the value in such a place, we still suffer from the "not in my neighborhood!" syndrome.
Beat Opiates on my OWN!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 246
It is a "choice" still. It may be an extrememly difficult choice for many and it may seem unavoidable to the addict, BUT ultimately its a choice. Its not like a person with renal cell carcinoma, an addict chooses to take that pill, smoke that pipe or drink that beer. Ultimately it is still different.
Beat Opiates on my OWN!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Latte 
Like MelissaNoDrugs, I too have seen that show. It was very eye opening.
I don't know what the happy medium is.
I don't know what the happy medium is.
Om, Aum, Ohm...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Punxsutawney/Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,797
In the alcoholism forum a few months ago, there was a thread similar to this--a link to an article about a house for alcoholics to drink safely, have a place to eat, to sleep, and if they see it through to the end, to die.
While I believe no one should be robbed of his or her bottom, if that bottom is the ultimate bottom, death, the opportunity to recover no longer exists. I don't think anyone can be made to want recovery. If we decriminalized drugs, regulated and taxed them, and then put that money into education, we wouldn't eliminate the problem of addiction, but we'd quit overcrowding our prisons (fewer violent drug crimes) and we may just get through to young people earlier and at a deeper level than we do today with our limited resources and "drive-by" drug education.
I've always felt a needle exchange program was a good idea. How many lives would be saved--addicts and those who are curious enough to try mainlining--when HIV and Hep C are transmitted through needle sharing? How many nonaddict partners are infected by those who contract these diseases this way?
Ideally, recovery options should be just as prominent as safe using options, but this seems like a step in the right direction, anyway.
Peace & Love,
Sugah
While I believe no one should be robbed of his or her bottom, if that bottom is the ultimate bottom, death, the opportunity to recover no longer exists. I don't think anyone can be made to want recovery. If we decriminalized drugs, regulated and taxed them, and then put that money into education, we wouldn't eliminate the problem of addiction, but we'd quit overcrowding our prisons (fewer violent drug crimes) and we may just get through to young people earlier and at a deeper level than we do today with our limited resources and "drive-by" drug education.
I've always felt a needle exchange program was a good idea. How many lives would be saved--addicts and those who are curious enough to try mainlining--when HIV and Hep C are transmitted through needle sharing? How many nonaddict partners are infected by those who contract these diseases this way?
Ideally, recovery options should be just as prominent as safe using options, but this seems like a step in the right direction, anyway.
Peace & Love,
Sugah
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dayton, OH.
Posts: 879
In the beginning of my recovery, I tried to force my XABF to join me in the journey by telling his parents that he and I had been squandering their money on crack-cocaine, heroin, pot, meth, and hookers (well, he got the hookers and meth). This backfired on so many levels that I had to literally stand my ground when he threatened to kill my children. I told him that if he came near either one of them I would not hesitate to pull the trigger, this with a 9mm shoved in his face.
Anyway, you're right. There is no way to force recovery. No more than forcing someone to take drugs (though there are instances where it does happen- on both fronts). I believe what Canada is doing is a HUGE step in the right direction. Especially if we would just stop glamorizing drug use and abuse (Charlie Sheen anyone???). It's not funny. There are people who can handle some "down time" with certain drugs and there are those of us who cannot. I know I can handle certain other drugs, but crack is a huge no no. Even if it were to be decriminalized or made legal I'd still stay away.
I also agree about our crowded prisons, especially when I hear that one guy's first offense for ANYTHING, he got 30 years for having a few grams of crack in his house and the stuff was on someone he thought was his friend. He had no clue about the crack, or so I was told by his girlfriend whom I work with. Seeing as that an 8 ball is worth between 125-200 around here and 30 years is about 20 grand a year to take care of him, we're on the losing end all around. This guy had no prior record and wasn't even the one with the crack on him. It was just in his house, which made him responsible yes, but to send him to prison on that? On OUR money? Ludicrous.
I still firmly believe we need to stop putting people in prison for non-violent offenses (drug use, sales, etc), decriminalize, and EDUCATE. The numbers don't lie. People do, of course, but more than one study has been done in other countries and it's high (pun not intended) time America catches up and gets with the program.
Thanks for sharing.
Though I still have the heebee jeebees over the needle thing. I hate needles. LOL
Anyway, you're right. There is no way to force recovery. No more than forcing someone to take drugs (though there are instances where it does happen- on both fronts). I believe what Canada is doing is a HUGE step in the right direction. Especially if we would just stop glamorizing drug use and abuse (Charlie Sheen anyone???). It's not funny. There are people who can handle some "down time" with certain drugs and there are those of us who cannot. I know I can handle certain other drugs, but crack is a huge no no. Even if it were to be decriminalized or made legal I'd still stay away.
I also agree about our crowded prisons, especially when I hear that one guy's first offense for ANYTHING, he got 30 years for having a few grams of crack in his house and the stuff was on someone he thought was his friend. He had no clue about the crack, or so I was told by his girlfriend whom I work with. Seeing as that an 8 ball is worth between 125-200 around here and 30 years is about 20 grand a year to take care of him, we're on the losing end all around. This guy had no prior record and wasn't even the one with the crack on him. It was just in his house, which made him responsible yes, but to send him to prison on that? On OUR money? Ludicrous.
I still firmly believe we need to stop putting people in prison for non-violent offenses (drug use, sales, etc), decriminalize, and EDUCATE. The numbers don't lie. People do, of course, but more than one study has been done in other countries and it's high (pun not intended) time America catches up and gets with the program.
Thanks for sharing.
Though I still have the heebee jeebees over the needle thing. I hate needles. LOL
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 594
That safe injection site is at the downtown east side on Vancouver (the skids). It might seem like a win,win situation, but its far from it.
There seems to be a law in this universe that dictates that NO ONE can have their cake and eat it too.
Proponents of the downtown eastside SIS (safe injection site) would say that it's just that, but dont be fooled.
Although there is alot less overdoses now, what they fail to admit is the flood of people who would not normally end up in the DTES, are flocking to the SIS to experiment (many first timers).
People who would NEVER have the nerve to shoot up and would normally stay away from the needle, are now more relaxed at the idea of trying it. Inside the SIS you cannot by law be arrested for possesion.
Cops dont even bother with addicts shooting up in plain view in the alleys of the DTES. It's a junkies paradise!
This situation is saving some lives, yes!!! ........but, it's created a deadly haven.
This is what happens when ya make a deal with the devil.
There seems to be a law in this universe that dictates that NO ONE can have their cake and eat it too.
Proponents of the downtown eastside SIS (safe injection site) would say that it's just that, but dont be fooled.
Although there is alot less overdoses now, what they fail to admit is the flood of people who would not normally end up in the DTES, are flocking to the SIS to experiment (many first timers).
People who would NEVER have the nerve to shoot up and would normally stay away from the needle, are now more relaxed at the idea of trying it. Inside the SIS you cannot by law be arrested for possesion.
Cops dont even bother with addicts shooting up in plain view in the alleys of the DTES. It's a junkies paradise!
This situation is saving some lives, yes!!! ........but, it's created a deadly haven.
This is what happens when ya make a deal with the devil.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 635
Originally Posted by thejuiceman
It is a "choice" still. It may be an extrememly difficult choice for many and it may seem unavoidable to the addict, BUT ultimately its a choice. Its not like a person with renal cell carcinoma, an addict chooses to take that pill, smoke that pipe or drink that beer. Ultimately it is still different.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 61
Harm reduction or treatment
Harm reduction tactics are as old as human thought.
bicycles: must wear helmet
cars: must wear seat belt, crash testing, speed limits
motorcycles: must wear helmet
cigarettes: non filtered evolved to filtered to lights to ultra lights
sex: rubbers handed out to kindergartners
prostitution: prostitutes registered and given monthly STD testing
drugs: needle exchange, safe crack use kits, safe drug use colliseums, government supplied drugs to eliminate adulterants, methadone clinics
alcohol: designated driver, college hires bus to transport students to various bard to stop DUI arrests, near beer,
electricity: mandatory GFCI
firearms: mandatory gun locks, firearm and bullets stored separately,
Unfortunately liberty is the freedom from excessive laws.
Unfortunately, according to naturalists and evolutionary secular humanism paradigms, which subscribe to moral relativity, there should not be consequences to wrong behavior. They want to legalize sitting on the burner while someone else sits on the blisters for them. According to the father of Evolution, survival of the fittest means that there are some members of a species who do not survive to enter their genes into the gene pool. But harm reduction philosophies are opposed to the very paradigm that secuolar humanism and moral relativitists of a naturalistic evolutionary philosophy espouse. The harm reduction perspective contradicts natural selection of survival of the fittest. There are some people whose ontogeny of phylogeny needs to be discombobulated.
bicycles: must wear helmet
cars: must wear seat belt, crash testing, speed limits
motorcycles: must wear helmet
cigarettes: non filtered evolved to filtered to lights to ultra lights
sex: rubbers handed out to kindergartners
prostitution: prostitutes registered and given monthly STD testing
drugs: needle exchange, safe crack use kits, safe drug use colliseums, government supplied drugs to eliminate adulterants, methadone clinics
alcohol: designated driver, college hires bus to transport students to various bard to stop DUI arrests, near beer,
electricity: mandatory GFCI
firearms: mandatory gun locks, firearm and bullets stored separately,
Unfortunately liberty is the freedom from excessive laws.
Unfortunately, according to naturalists and evolutionary secular humanism paradigms, which subscribe to moral relativity, there should not be consequences to wrong behavior. They want to legalize sitting on the burner while someone else sits on the blisters for them. According to the father of Evolution, survival of the fittest means that there are some members of a species who do not survive to enter their genes into the gene pool. But harm reduction philosophies are opposed to the very paradigm that secuolar humanism and moral relativitists of a naturalistic evolutionary philosophy espouse. The harm reduction perspective contradicts natural selection of survival of the fittest. There are some people whose ontogeny of phylogeny needs to be discombobulated.
Beat Opiates on my OWN!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Tryin2Recover
It is misinformation like that which continues to cast a dark cloud over the DISEASE of addiction, and frankly, I would never expect a non addict like yourself to understand it...That is, a true addict has lost the power of choice. It no longer exists.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by Tryin2Recover
It is misinformation like that which continues to cast a dark cloud over the DISEASE of addiction, and frankly, I would never expect a non addict like yourself to understand it...That is, a true addict has lost the power of choice. It no longer exists.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by Tryin2Recover
It is misinformation like that which continues to cast a dark cloud over the DISEASE of addiction, and frankly, I would never expect a non addict like yourself to understand it...That is, a true addict has lost the power of choice. It no longer exists.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
And to equate a mostly mental disease to a physical one such as kidney cancer just goes to further show your lack of understanding. What about the person with OCD who has to lock a door 5 times to feel safe? Or the schitzo who thinks the government is after them? What about the toureettes person who is constantly having outbursts...what about the Altzheimer's patient who can't remember his own wife? If you think these are choices, then you probably need to go read up more on them and understand them, before cursing these people as having weak will.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 635
I chose every morning for several months to not get high, yet, for some reason, I was high by the end of the day. In addictive addiction, I do not have a choice of where I stop. If you believe you do, then you are either in denial, or not a real addict. Plain and simple.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 18
I would have to agree. A true addict is not really making a choice to take that drug. Think of it as an allergy. An addicts body has an allergic reaction to a drug, which differs in the way that a normal persons body would react to the same drug. For that matter, AA, NA, etc, which are world renowned for being able to rescue addicts (alcoholics too) that no one else could, felt that this point was important enough to get across that they put it in their very first step. Being powerless over your addiction means (at least in my humble opinion) that there is no choice being made. Again, just my .02.
Beat Opiates on my OWN!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Tryin2Recover
I chose every morning for several months to not get high, yet, for some reason, I was high by the end of the day. In addictive addiction, I do not have a choice of where I stop. If you believe you do, then you are either in denial, or not a real addict. Plain and simple.
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,439
In 4 years here I've never seen a choice/no choice discussion come to any real resolution.
Some believe one thing, others believe the other - and I've seen people from both sides of this ideological divide stay clean/sober.
D
Some believe one thing, others believe the other - and I've seen people from both sides of this ideological divide stay clean/sober.
D
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
#1] I have to believe that more will be revealed when it comes to the injection site(s) and that the worst is yet to be seen. Allowing addicts a "safe" place to kill themselves as long as the deaths are reduced right now seems pretty weird and downright anti-recovery. To echo Dreamscape, it's like making a deal with the devil.
#2] Addiction, as a disease, is not something that can be chosen. What can be chosen is using a drug, yet every person that uses a drug doesn't become an addict. Many addicts, who have done a thorough and honest self-assessment, will tell you that they were addicts long before they ever touched a drug. When most of us speak of addiction we generally conclude that drugs are the cause (especially when talking of drug addicts), but we never fully comprehend that it is addiction that creates the drug addict and not the reverse.
#2] Addiction, as a disease, is not something that can be chosen. What can be chosen is using a drug, yet every person that uses a drug doesn't become an addict. Many addicts, who have done a thorough and honest self-assessment, will tell you that they were addicts long before they ever touched a drug. When most of us speak of addiction we generally conclude that drugs are the cause (especially when talking of drug addicts), but we never fully comprehend that it is addiction that creates the drug addict and not the reverse.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
