Vancouver Coastal Health to give out free crackpipes!!!

[bartendr]

][video]http://www.globaltvbc.com/Crack+pipe+pilot+program+sparks+social+media+debat e/5199692/story[/video]

 

[princeofdarkness]

My blood pressure went through the roof when I read the news this morning. Now, what will Vancouver Coastal Health give me for that?

 

[klamkracker]

The lady who brought it up I think she is a SP?

 

[westcoast555]

Don't you realize how important a brand new clean pipe is to a Crack Ho that does bareback blowjobs? I mean, that nice, new, clean, crack pipe could save her life and prevent her from getting a disease.

It would be so wrong to support her working in a brothel, ensuring that she's licensed and that her health is checked frequently or anything else that would be effective.

So much simpler to apply another bandaid and being seen "Doing Something".

While they're doing that shit I'd rather they don't contract and spread any more disease... it's not like people will start doing crack just because they get a free pipe right? I don't want any more Hep C, AIDS, or any other communicable disease introduced into the general population. I'd also rather not spend the money treating people with those diseases if its spread can be curtailed at source. It's not a moral issue it's a health issue. And ultimately one of logical self-interest as well as benevolence toward people on the margins of society who are in the grip of a crippling and destructive addiction.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

While they're doing that shit I'd rather they don't contract and spread any more disease... it's not like people will start doing crack just because they get a free pipe right? I don't want any more Hep C, AIDS, or any other communicable disease introduced into the general population. I'd also rather not spend the money treating people with those diseases if its spread can be curtailed at source. It's not a moral issue it's a health issue. And ultimately one of logical self-interest as well as benevolence toward people on the margins of society who are in the grip of a crippling and destructive addiction.

x1

Harm reduction.:clap2:



And sorry Al, no one wants to

"support her working in a brothel, ensuring that she's licensed and that her health is checked frequently or anything else that would be effective"

either.
You're describing legalization, which comes with all kinds of regulations, fees and licenses. That means anyone who currently works quietly from their home as an independent would likely not be interested in working in a brothel and would likely not be interested in moving because of "zoning" regulations, or to have to pay the expensive licenses and fees and all the bureaucracy that comes along. What does that mean? It means that in the end, the majority of us would still be criminalized.

Decriminalization is what we're hoping for - NOT legalization. There's a difference.

To legalize sex work would mean regulating sex work and sex workers. For example, prostitution has been legalized in some parts of Nevada: but only at licensed brothels where women are required to get weekly health screenings and pay all sorts of fees to become a registered prostitute. A sex worker is treated as a controlled vice without a lot of options. Think of legalization as similar to how bottles of liquor are handled in states where you have to go to special government-run stores (with bad hours) to purchase them.

To decriminalize sex work would mean to remove any laws that make sex work illegal or regulated. It does not treat sex work as a special class of work that requires extra taxes, permits, fees, or regulations. A sex worker is like any other worker in the eyes of the law. Think of decriminalization as akin to being able to freely buy and sell oranges without needing a special orange permit or to reside in an citrus-zoned area. You can buy oranges from a top-end grocery story, or from a guy on the side of the road.

http://www.feminisnt.com/2011/legal...ion-why-the-healthcare-analogy-is-misapplied/

http://aidscalgary.blogspot.com/2010/08/legalization-vs-decriminalization-of.html

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000114

http://www.freedomusa.org/coyotela/decrim.html


Just wanted to clarify.

 

[TooLegit]

Miss Bijou,

Out of curiosity alone, if decriminalization was off the table, would you prefer things stay the way they are currently OR full on legalization with regulation?

 

[curmudgeon]

Hey, we should form a lobby group called the "Vancouver Area Network of Sex Addicts", make lots of noise, and plead our case to Vancouver Coastal Health. Maybe they'll provide us with free hookers

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Hey, we should form a lobby group called the "Vancouver Area Network of Sex Addicts", make lots of noise, and plead our case to Vancouver Coastal Health. Maybe they'll provide us with free hookers

not in this life!! free condoms more like it - factory seconds must be cheap enough to hand out for free...

 

[westcoast555]

not in this life!! free condoms more like it - factory seconds must be cheap enough to hand out for free...

The last time I went to get tested the nurse gave me a paper bag filled with condoms.
I will put them to good use!

 

[treveller]

The Vancouver Sun article was short, just quoting the prponents, ie. health professionals and harm reduction supporters.

The National Post article included bullshit from drug prohibitionists/harm proponents, Tom Stamatakis of the Vancouver & Canadian Police Association and David Berner of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. I understand these are just two of the self serving idiots who want Insite shut down.

The National Post article also quoted Walter Cavaliere of the Canadian Harm Reduction Network.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

hmmmmpht Furious clacking of keys at 3AM accompanied by screams of "how DARE he say that" isn't someone "who currently works quietly from their home as an independent". - Just Saying

Hey Al,

I'm sorry if I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your comment. I just want to clarify my comment wasn't meant or intended as a "how dare he" kind of reply. I think a lot of people, until recently that included me as well, aren't aware there's a difference between legalizing and decriminalizing. I think it's important for people who may discuss this debate away from this board (ie with friends, co-workers etc) to be as knowledgeable about it as possible and especially to use the correct terms. Otherwise we continue to confuse the issue and that doesn't help anyone.

I wasn't assuming you were or were not aware of the distinction but I took your comment as an opportunity to point it out to others who may not have already known. I had posted this info before but it was removed for unrelated reasons.. I was planning to post again at some point and your post just presented me with an chance to clarify... So nothing personal or directly aimed at you - just used your comments as a springboard.

 

[storm rider]

Well thats B.C ......pretty typical actually...."safe" injection sites for an illegal drug that destroys the fabric of society.....and now free crack pipes to smoke another illegal drug that also destroys the fabric of society......gotta give that free crack pipe to the addict so that he/she can get high and when he/she comes down and needs more crack and thusly violently robs someone at an ATM....or outside a subway.....or when a person is out for a walk......or when a person is struggling with a couple bags from Safeway and wrestling to open the door of the car/suv you have a crack addict sticking a knife in their face and robbing them to buy more crack......just so those people can smoke that illegal drug through their bona-fide BC Government issued 100% clean/safe crack pipe....all paid for by the taxpayer who whilst could be a victim of said crimes by said crack addict is getting bent over and fucked in the ass by the B.C Government.

I am so fricken glad I live in Alberta.

SR

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Well thats B.C ......pretty typical actually...."safe" injection sites for an illegal drug that destroys the fabric of society.....and now free crack pipes to smoke another illegal drug that also destroys the fabric of society......gotta give that free crack pipe to the addict so that he/she can get high and when he/she comes down and needs more crack and thusly violently robs someone at an ATM....or outside a subway.....or when a person is out for a walk......or when a person is struggling with a couple bags from Safeway and wrestling to open the door of the car/suv you have a crack addict sticking a knife in their face and robbing them to buy more crack......just so those people can smoke that illegal drug through their bona-fide BC Government issued 100% clean/safe crack pipe....all paid for by the taxpayer who whilst could be a victim of said crimes by said crack addict is getting bent over and fucked in the ass by the B.C Government.

I am so fricken glad I live in Alberta.

SR

Are you saying that these people wouldn't smoke crack if they weren't provided with pipes? Or that people wouldn't inject heroine if they didn't have access to clean needles and a safe place to go where they have access to medical personnel? Are you saying harm reduction programs are responsible for these people's addiction and the crimes you say they commit?


I don't think it takes a genius to realize that people aren't suddenly going to rush to become addicts just because they can now get these pipes or clean needles. Addicts would be addicts and would commit these crimes whether they were provided with these or not. They would also not let the lack of clean needle or pipe get in the way of their addiction and because of that addiction they would use whatever is available to them at that time, which very often means they would be sharing and using used ones. As we all know, this often means sharing needles or pipes that have been contaminated with either hiv, hepatitis, TB and other infections which obviously increases the likelihood of transmission.

Safer injection facilities (SIFs). These provide an environment where drug users can inject in a safer manner and under medical supervision. Like needle exchange programmes they may offer drug education and referral for treatment. They also aim to reduce public disorder issues and risks associated with injection drug use such as large congregations of injectors in public places and litter, particularly syringes. Such facilities exist in only eight countries including Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia and Canada.

After Frankfurt introduced SIFs in the early 1990s, cases of HIV among IDUs declined, as did overdose cases in the city which dropped dramatically from 147 in 1991 to 22 in 1997. This decline can be attributed to the city’s overall harm reduction approach, though overdose cases dropped steeply in the year following the introduction of SIFs. Furthermore, IDUs who overdose in safer injection facilities are 10 times less likely to require hospitalisation. Research of Vancouver's Insite, North America’s first SIF, found that there was no association between the facility and the rate of drug trafficking or other crimes linked to drug use. Moreover, in the two year period following the opening of Insite, the fatal overdose rate declined by 35 percent in the surrounding area.

The Insite facility had faced pressure by Canada’s Conservative government, and was threatened with closure under drug trafficking and possession laws. However, a 2008 ruling allowed it to remain open. In the judge’s opinion, Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violated individuals' constitutional rights:

“It denies the addict access to a health care facility where the risk of morbidity associated with infectious disease is diminished, if not eliminated… While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition.”

http://www.avert.org/needle-exchange.htm

Now I can guess you personally don't care if addicts become infected and I can assume you feel no compassion so I won't bother with this aspect. But I assume you do care about healthcare costs, right? Well it's nice for you that you're glad to live in Alberta but one thing to keep in mind is that Vancouver doesn't compare to any other city and the amount of users here by far outnumber those found in any other city. What you get when you're dealing with a problem of this magnitude in a world where diseases can spread really easily within a large group because of the sharing of needles and pipes, is extremely high rates of infections. Inaction guarantees these will continue to increase as new users become exposed/infected by continued sharing of needles/pipes - that's basic common sense.

Vancouver, Canada is home to one of the worst epidemics of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in the developed world. Injection drug users are the most affected persons; as many as 40 percent of them in Vancouver's impoverished Downtown Eastside are living with HIV/AIDS.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2003/05/06/abusing-user

Let that sink in for a minute and then try to imagine the cost of treating these people once they enter the healthcare system and require long time care. It goes without saying that inaction now will inevitably lead to a steady increase of people who will require ongoing health care and medical treatment (and expensive drugs) for many years. Can you begin to imagine the cost of all of this? Now let that sink in because it's HUGE and keeps rising if we decide to do nothing.

The lifetime cost of treatment for HIV is $250,000: among injection drug users, 17- to 31-per-cent (depending on the cohort studied) are HIV positive. Vancouver has the highest rate of HIV infection among drug users in Canada. The cost of treatment for Hepatitis C is about $30,000 annually but successful treatment rates are low for IDUs, around 40 percent. The rate of Hepatitis C infection among Vancouver IDUs has been reported from 63 – 92 percent in different cohorts.

http://vancouver.ca/fourpillars/harmReduction/limitHarmDrugUse.htm

According to an Australian government study, investment in needle exchange programmes from 1991 to 2000 averted 25,000 HIV infections and 21,000 hepatitis C infections. A later Australian study examining the impact of needle exchanges in the following decade revealed they had prevented 32,000 HIV infections and almost 100,000 hepatitis C infections. Furthermore, it is believed the needle exchanges led to healthcare cost savings of over AU$1 billon, equating to a five-fold return on investment for every dollar spent.

The effectiveness of needle exchanges in preventing needle reuse and the potential transmission of HIV has been reflected in a Canadian report. The study found that between 2008 and 2009, needle sharing increased from 10 to 23 percent following the closure of Victoria's only fixed needle exchange. On the other hand needle sharing among those studied in Vancouver, which has a number of needle exchanges, remained at less than 11 percent.

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report in 2004 that reviewed the effectiveness of needle exchange programmes in many countries, and examined whether they promoted or prolonged illicit drug use. The results produced convincing evidence that needle exchange programmes significantly reduce HIV infection, and no evidence that they encourage drug use.

http://www.avert.org/needle-exchange.htm

So to me, there's no question that reducing infections NOW is the smart way to go. There's no question that the money spent now on providing needles, pipes, education and health services is chump change in comparison to the costs we'll be dealing with if infection rates keep going up and nothing is done. To me, choosing to do nothing and allowing the continued rise in the spreading if these infections is beyond ridiculous. It really defies logic when the benefits of harm reduction have been shown to be real. http://www.communityinsite.ca/science.html

Harm reduction measures are supported and implemented by NGOs, health authorities, governments and multilateral organisations worldwide. However, such methods for dealing with the harms of drugs have been surrounded by controversy since the mid 1980s when needle exchanges and substitution treatments were first introduced in Western Europe. Drugs policy is often discussed in a very moralistic way, with many politicians adopting stances that do not take into account scientific evidence. Because of the impact of drug abuse on society, and perhaps the mind-altering nature of drugs, legislators want to show they are "tough on drugs", even if their policies contribute to the damage they claim to be against.

Advocates of needle exchanges and other harm reduction measures point to the evidence that such programmes reduce the incidence of HIV infection and do not encourage drug use. Furthermore, they say having abstinence as the only goal worth pursuing is unrealistic, and as long as people continue to take drugs, they should be encouraged to do so in the least harmful way possible. It is argued that the benefits of harm reduction transcend beyond the drug user into society, not only by reducing death, crime and HIV infection but through supporting education.

..


In 2004, Republican Congressman, Mark Souder, then chairman of the US Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, criticised harm reduction supporters:

"Advocates of this position hold that dangerous behaviors, such as drug abuse, should be accepted by society and those who choose such lifestyles - or become trapped in them - should be enabled to continue these behaviors in a less harmful manner."

In response the president of the International Harm Reduction Association summarised the debate over needle exchange programmes and other harm reduction measures as one which “divides participants into those who base their judgements on data from those who base their judgements on other considerations than data”.

http://www.slate.com/id/2242828/entry/2242868

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/he...publications/publications/atwhatcost_20090302





But you have a strong opinion against this strategy so perhaps you have a different idea in mind or a plan that would achieve similar results and I'm simply not seeing it. So maybe you could explain it to me and clarify how inaction now (not providing access to clean needles/pipes) results in avoiding the increased spreading of infections among drug users? How it helps to avoid the inevitable health care costs that will follow and, of course, the HUGE bill that we'll be left with and forced to pay?

I'll be honest, I'm not seeing it. But I must be missing something so I look forward to your explanation.

 

[susi]

just want to say Miss Bijou ROCKS!!

and that vancouver coastal health are amazing. they have gone out on a limb for sex workers over and over supporting and funding development of sex industry occupational health and safety tools and materials even though technically, its illegal to tell sex workers how to work safely.

Calgary....yes, i once made a presentation in Calgary...to the Calgary Network on Prostitution. pretty backwards policies out there, arresting people for their own good, etc. it's i believe over $1000 a year for an escort license...that's not high barrier or anything....yup glad to live in one of the most open cities in the world!!

hope everyone is well!! i have been meeting a bit with the missing women's commission and it seems they are stalled a little but i still have alot of hope that the final outcome will be everything we hope for...crossing fingers....

love susieXXXO

 

[treveller]

Storm rider, you say you are glad you live in Alberta. I'm also glad you live in Alberta. I'm glad I live in BC.

Sorry, too obvious an opening to resist. Demerit points accepted.

 

[westcoast555]

Well thats B.C ......pretty typical actually...."safe" injection sites for an illegal drug that destroys the fabric of society.....and now free crack pipes to smoke another illegal drug that also destroys the fabric of society......gotta give that free crack pipe to the addict so that he/she can get high and when he/she comes down and needs more crack and thusly violently robs someone at an ATM....or outside a subway.....or when a person is out for a walk......or when a person is struggling with a couple bags from Safeway and wrestling to open the door of the car/suv you have a crack addict sticking a knife in their face and robbing them to buy more crack......just so those people can smoke that illegal drug through their bona-fide BC Government issued 100% clean/safe crack pipe....all paid for by the taxpayer who whilst could be a victim of said crimes by said crack addict is getting bent over and fucked in the ass by the B.C Government.

I am so fricken glad I live in Alberta.

SR

Nobody's saying smoking crack is good. It's bad. Everybody understands this. You seem to not even address the 'harm reduction' argument? Why is this? If these screw ups are out there smoking crack would you prefer that in addition to all the crime they commit that they also spread more disease? Something that puts more people at risk and costs us ALL MORE MONEY?

You're making a moral argument as if this policy is somehow promoting drug use. It isn't. It's just aimed at reducing the damage caused by people who started using drugs and would do so anyway even if they don't have access to clean gear.

The fabric of society is torn by drugs.. yes. You want the tear to be deeper than it could be if we try to bolster their hygiene?

 

[Vibe9]

all paid for by the taxpayer who whilst could be a victim of said crimes by said crack addict is getting bent over and fucked in the ass by the B.C Government.
SR

I think the total bill for pipes was about $60,000. I'm guessing $60,000 doesn't by much in the way of Hep C treatment. Regardless of your moral stance, I think this has somewhat of a cost benefit to the tax payer.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Here's a fucking novel idea - why not spend some real money on treatment to help get these losers off their addictions?

Harm reduction is a great buzz phrase, but there is no way to quantify all those studies and statistics from Australia. It's guesswork, at best.

The problem now is everybody has advocates - the fucking VANDU - give me a break - drug addicts have their own union to advocate for their rights, but don't have the ability or guts, or motivation to try to clean up? And they are taken seriously? Why?

Anyone actually wanting to get clean has nowhere to go and sits on a waiting list until they give up. Create some treatment centres and decent follow-up. Giving addicts more reasons to use is not harm reduction - it's enabling and being complicit in their deterioration.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Here's a fucking novel idea - why not spend some real money on treatment to help get these losers off their addictions?

Harm reduction is a great buzz phrase, but there is no way to quantify all those studies and statistics from Australia. It's guesswork, at best.

The problem now is everybody has advocates - the fucking VANDU - give me a break - drug addicts have their own union to advocate for their rights, but don't have the ability or guts, or motivation to try to clean up? And they are taken seriously? Why?

Anyone actually wanting to get clean has nowhere to go and sits on a waiting list until they give up. Create some treatment centres and decent follow-up. Giving addicts more reasons to use is not harm reduction - it's enabling and being complicit in their deterioration.

How is that enabling? And how exactly does it give addicts "more reasons to use"? You have any evidence that this is the case? Considering studies have found those claims about harm reduction to be untrue (please see my last post as I included a quote & link about this + more below), you need to back up what you're saying with some facts. We're just supposed to take your word for it? Sorry but merely saying it doesn't make it so. Especially when there's an impressive amount of actual evidence that shows what you're saying to be untrue.

And in addition to not promoting use, the focus on harm reduction seems to increase the number of people seeking treatment (see below). I don't know but I don't think these scientific publications would agree with you when you qualify the scientist's peer-reviewed research results as "just guesswork".

If you want to read the full papers about all the supposed "guesswork": http://www.communityinsite.ca/science.html

 

[Cock Throppled]

As usual, you ere so busy googling a bunch of statistics you didn't address my core argument - GET SOME FUCKING TREATMENT availability.

Are you against trying to get people off drugs, or are you happy to keep giving them places to shoot up, free needles, tying up more medical resources, etc?

Do you think a union of drug addicts should be taken seriously?

On a related point - why aren't diabetics give free needles? Does this make sense, or do only think drug addicts deserve them?