Vancouver Coastal Health to give out free crackpipes!!!

[Karl Blues]

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?

Your argument was that harm reduction was a buzzword and total bs. She quoted studies that refute your statement. Your response was rude and typical CT post. Use of the F word in a post like this doesn't reinforce your theory. Those that have nothing intelligent to say resort to intimidation and swearing.

I knew an addict some years ago. Desperately wanted to get off drugs. No programs helped. An addict is an addict. He ended up on the streets, sharing needles, contracted HIV. Don't know what happened to him, but all the medical bills were paid by the taxpayer.

That is what harm reduction is trying to avoid. It won't always work, but give it a chance.

 

[treveller]

Harm Reduction is the best way to get people into treatment and treatment is a part of harm reduction.

??? "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 war on drugs is a great buzz phrase that some people are conned by and all the studies show it is a harmful and expensive failure.

If you think there is any value in the "War on Drugs" and the "just send the bums for treatment" approach try understanding the report by The Global Commission on Drug Policy at

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

 

[Miss*Bijou]

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

I didn't google anything, I posted the same exact link as my previous post. And I'd say looking at the science and the Insite website is kind of good idea if I'm going to post anything.

Now as for your argument, it is a very legitimate concern and I absolutely agree that more resources should be available to those seeking treatment. However I don't think it's a question of choosing one over the other. I think both are needed to address two different issues. All the spaces for treatment in the world will never tackle the public health issues and problems that concern those who are using and not seeking treatment at this time. To force people into treatment is an absolute waste of money and resources because that's just not how it works, people have to make that decision for themselves when they are ready. This means we need solutions that consider the reality that people are using and will continue to use, so how do we minimize the damage. One is not meant to replace the other, both are necessary to address 2 different situations. Do you agree with this?



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?

As I just mentioned, "trying to get people off drugs" when people do not want to get themselves off drugs, is an absolute waste of time for everyone involved. This way of dealing with addicts is never going to succeed and is going to result in frustration and total failure to prevent all of the consequences that come with needle sharing, injecting in public, etc, etc. Is that really a logical way to use what limited money and resources are available to begin with? My opinion is that it isn't.



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

I don't see what this has to do with harm reduction. But regardless, unfortunately I don't know much about that - certainly not enough to comment either way.



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

Are you saying that because diabetics have to pay for their needles, addicts should have to as well, even though diabetics aren't particularly at risk of HIV/Hepatitis and other infections or aren't likely to share needles like addicts are? It is unfortunate that diabetics have to pay for needles and if you feel that strongly about it then why not work towards this goal. But as an argument against addicts having access to clean needles, it just doesn't cut it IMO.

oh and storm rider, I just read this and LOL'd:

In a small handful of cities, including Calgary and Winnipeg, local health authorities pass out crack pipes. Others prefer to only hand out mouth pieces, which users can place on their own pipes to avoid exposing themselves to others' saliva and blood.

 

[treveller]

Any union of drug addicts should certainly be taken seriously. They know better than anyone else what the needs of drug addicts are and we can all benefit from respecting what they have to say.

The goal of harm reduction is to benefit the whole community and that is done best by listening to the people at the centre of the problem.

And for an exercise in name dropping, here is a list of the people who agree with me, the members of the Global Commision On Drug Policy. (I suppose it would be more reasonable to say I agree with them.)

» Asma Jahangir
- human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

» Carlos Fuentes
- writer and public intellectual, Mexico

» César Gaviria
- former President of Colômbia

» Ernesto Zedillo
- former President of México

» Fernando Henrique Cardoso
- former President of Brazil (chair)

» George Papandreou
- Prime Minister of Greece

» George Shultz
- former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair)

» Javier Solana
- former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain

» John Whitehead
- banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial, United States

» Kofi Annan
- former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

» Louise Arbour
- former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

» Maria Cattaui
- Member of the Board, Petroplus Holdings; former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland

» Marion Caspers-Merk
- former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health, Germany

» Mario Vargas Llosa
- writer and public intellectual, Peru

» Michel Kazatchkine
- executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France

» Paul Volcker
- former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board, US

» Richard Branson
- entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

» Ruth Dreifuss
- former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

» Thorvald Stoltenberg
- former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

 

[uncleg]

trev, they are all formers, don't any of them have a job ???

 

[Cock Throppled]

Let me maker an analogy.

You want and crave water but can only scoop up some with your hands.

Someone gives you a cup. You still crave and want water, but now it's easier to get the water you need and maybe, because it is easier you even drink more water than you need.

Where do you draw the line? Why not free drinks for alcoholics? It would certainly reduce harm to provide free rides for every person drinking at a pub or beer parlour.

Why not free food for the obese?

Free escorts for sex addicts?

Free cigarettes?

We have more addicts in Vancouver than any time in the last 50 years even with all the education about the dangers/effects of drugs.

Why?

Drug addicts are takers - they'll take whatever they can get from your money or your life to your free crack pipes and spare change. Drug addicts contribute nothing but negatives to society.

Every one of you in favour of free crack pipes has bought into the party line from the misery industry of the downtown east side.

Why do you think nothing ever improves down there? It's because everyone has a stake in keeping addicts addicted.

If there was a will to really clean up the place there would be resources in place to get addicts treatment physically and mentally and follow them with resources. Things like free crack pipes just keeps the status quo so the money keeps flowing.

I suggest some of you jion the real world and go down to the lane off Coumbia between Hastings and Pender one night and take a look around at how much Insite and free crack pipes have improved the area.

 

[storm rider]

Let me maker an analogy.

You want and crave water but can only scoop up some with your hands.

Someone gives you a cup. You still crave and want water, but now it's easier to get the water you need and maybe, because it is easier you even drink more water than you need.

Where do you draw the line? Why not free drinks for alcoholics? It would certainly reduce harm to provide free rides for every person drinking at a pub or beer parlour.

Why not free food for the obese?

Free escorts for sex addicts?

Free cigarettes?

We have more addicts in Vancouver than any time in the last 50 years even with all the education about the dangers/effects of drugs.

Why?

Drug addicts are takers - they'll take whatever they can get from your money or your life to your free crack pipes and spare change. Drug addicts contribute nothing but negatives to society.

Every one of you in favour of free crack pipes has bought into the party line from the misery industry of the downtown east side.

Why do you think nothing ever improves down there? It's because everyone has a stake in keeping addicts addicted.

If there was a will to really clean up the place there would be resources in place to get addicts treatment physically and mentally and follow them with resources. Things like free crack pipes just keeps the status quo so the money keeps flowing.

I suggest some of you jion the real world and go down to the lane off Coumbia between Hastings and Pender one night and take a look around at how much Insite and free crack pipes have improved the area.

Well said CT.

SR

 

[wilde]

Let me maker an analogy.

You want and crave water but can only scoop up some with your hands.

Someone gives you a cup. You still crave and want water, but now it's easier to get the water you need and maybe, because it is easier you even drink more water than you need.

Where do you draw the line? Why not free drinks for alcoholics? It would certainly reduce harm to provide free rides for every person drinking at a pub or beer parlour.

Why not free food for the obese?

Free escorts for sex addicts?

Free cigarettes?

We have more addicts in Vancouver than any time in the last 50 years even with all the education about the dangers/effects of drugs.

Why?

Drug addicts are takers - they'll take whatever they can get from your money or your life to your free crack pipes and spare change. Drug addicts contribute nothing but negatives to society.

Every one of you in favour of free crack pipes has bought into the party line from the misery industry of the downtown east side.

Why do you think nothing ever improves down there? It's because everyone has a stake in keeping addicts addicted.

If there was a will to really clean up the place there would be resources in place to get addicts treatment physically and mentally and follow them with resources. Things like free crack pipes just keeps the status quo so the money keeps flowing.

I suggest some of you jion the real world and go down to the lane off Coumbia between Hastings and Pender one night and take a look around at how much Insite and free crack pipes have improved the area.

Please read up on false analogy fallacy, better known as weak or faulty analogy fallacy. Comparing drugs with water, are you freaking serious? If you want to strengthen your argument, you should stop using these ridiculous analogies. And how do you "suggest" that the DTES be "cleaned up", throw all the addicts in prison? In case you haven't heard, the war on drugs is an epic fail.

 

[shockley]

Please read up on false analogy fallacy, better known as weak or faulty analogy fallacy.

"It would certainly reduce harm to provide free rides for every person drinking at a pub or beer parlour"...

please explain how the above statement is a false analogy...

BTW, can you give us a wikipedia link...

incidentally, have always had troubles with adults who use the phrase "epic fail"...

 

[Cock Throppled]

Please read up on false analogy fallacy, better known as weak or faulty analogy fallacy. Comparing drugs with water, are you freaking serious? If you want to strengthen your argument, you should stop using these ridiculous analogies. And how do you "suggest" that the DTES be "cleaned up", throw all the addicts in prison? In case you haven't heard, the war on drugs is an epic fail.

Are you intentionally obtuse or does it come naturally?

The subject of the analogy is immaterial. I could have used ice cream if it makes it more understandable to you.

And, as usual you bring up something unrelated - "the war on drugs is an epic fail." Yeah, so what? I happen to agree - it has nothing to do with the argument enabling addicts is pointless. Ask former addicts - most of them are completely against free shooting galleries and crack pipes.

Have you ever even been down to unit block Hastings?
Have you ever lived down there? Talked to addicts or residents?
Have you any idea what happens in the real world as opposed to what you find off the internet?

I lived and worked in that area for years and the area is much worse now than five years ago.

 

[violetblake]

Cock Throppled: They're giving out free crackpipes, not free crack, therefore your analogy doesn't make sense. It's only one part of a complex solution, which ideally would be better access to treatment, better preventative measures (which has many roots, including care for mental illness, stopping domestic violence, etc). There's virtually none of these resources anywhere in Canada, and that's because the government doesn't care, and enough people think that humans are superheros who can snap their fingers and become unaddicted. The point of Insite or giving out free crackpipes is so that until the drug addicts gets clean (because it's not easy for anyone and does not happen overnight) they are safe. Anyone can become a drug addict, they are not a sub-species of human. And so they deserve all the help they can to get clean.

 

[shockley]

they are not a sub-species of human. And so they deserve all the help they can to get clean.

where did he say they were a sub-species of human...

much into hyperbole...

 

[shockley]

The point of Insite or giving out free crackpipes is so that until the drug addicts gets clean (because it's not easy for anyone and does not happen overnight) they are safe.

what an absolutely naive and simplistic view of the current state of affairs...

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Let me maker an analogy.

You want and crave water but can only scoop up some with your hands.

Someone gives you a cup. You still crave and want water, but now it's easier to get the water you need and maybe, because it is easier you even drink more water than you need.

Where do you draw the line? Why not free drinks for alcoholics? It would certainly reduce harm to provide free rides for every person drinking at a pub or beer parlour.

Why not free food for the obese?

Free escorts for sex addicts?

Free cigarettes?

We have more addicts in Vancouver than any time in the last 50 years even with all the education about the dangers/effects of drugs.

Why?

Drug addicts are takers - they'll take whatever they can get from your money or your life to your free crack pipes and spare change. Drug addicts contribute nothing but negatives to society.

Every one of you in favour of free crack pipes has bought into the party line from the misery industry of the downtown east side.

Why do you think nothing ever improves down there? It's because everyone has a stake in keeping addicts addicted.

If there was a will to really clean up the place there would be resources in place to get addicts treatment physically and mentally and follow them with resources. Things like free crack pipes just keeps the status quo so the money keeps flowing.

I suggest some of you jion the real world and go down to the lane off Coumbia between Hastings and Pender one night and take a look around at how much Insite and free crack pipes have improved the area.

You're totally missing the point. Someone who doesn't have access to clean needles isn't going to say oh well, that sucks - guess I won't get high then. They're going to look at the person sitting next to them and use whatever syringe is closest to them. Period. They are getting high no matter what. The question is do we want them using dirty syringes and sharing with others, which we know results in high rates of hiv/hepatitis infection/transmission or do we look at it rationally and think maybe it makes sense to give them access to clean needles because we know they're a lot less likely to share dirty needles and end up infected and with serious health problems down the line? Really, it's as simple as that. Bottom line.


That's really all it boils down to and harm reduction continues to produce successful results that we all benefit from, while the old prohibition/tough on crime approach has not produced any results and it never has for as long as we've used it. So I'm really not sure how people can still argue for that approach when the whole war on drugs approach has already proven to be a complete failure. Why in the world would we want to continue doing something that is useless and complete waste of time?


I'm not sure why you're just repeating the same thing again even after I've addressed why it's not realistic...? Is it not clear to you that there are and will always be people who don't want treatment? And that offering these people access to treatment is going to make absolutely no difference at all because they will not use services they don't want. That's not very difficult to predict. You will never get rid of drugs or addicts, anyone who thinks that is a realistic expectation is out of touch with reality. If that's what you mean by "clean up", it shows your lack of understanding in the situation.


Is there a reason you're completely ignoring the evidence that shows harm reduction works, the lack of similar evidence for your suggestion and the abundant experience showing is doesn't work? I'm not sure how there can even be any debate. You can find 100 analogies if you want but I don't see the point when we already know a lot of the real benefits specific to harm reduction. There's no need for any analogy, why would there be? Reality works just fine for me.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

And, as usual you bring up something unrelated - "the war on drugs is an epic fail." Yeah, so what? I happen to agree - it has nothing to do with the argument enabling addicts is pointless.

Uh, how is the war on drugs unrelated? How exactly do you qualify your position if not "war on drugs"?
I'm sorry but your arguments are classic "war on drugs".

Ask former addicts - most of them are completely against free shooting galleries and crack pipes.

I somehow really doubt that "most of them" are completely against it.
But I'm sure there are a few who are. Kind of like we have abolitionist ex escorts too. (you know like that nut, Trisha Baptie) Sorry but that means sweet f all.

 

[shockley]

I somehow really doubt that "most of them" are completely against it.
But I'm sure there are a few who are. Kind of like we have abolitionist ex escorts too. (you know like that nut, Trisha Baptie) Sorry but that means sweet f all.[/FONT]

what an absurd conjecture/seque...

with no basis in fact...

other than it satisfies you...

with a complimentary F-bomb thrown in...

 

[Miss*Bijou]

what an absurd conjecture/seque...

with no basis in fact...

other than it satisfies you...

with a complimentary F-bomb thrown in...

Right. Because his initial claim that "most were against it" wasn't conjecture. Why do you bother? Do you have an actual argument you'd like to discuss? Or are you just going to bless us with more of your asinine commentary to everyone else's posts?

You just finished a ban, don't you think it's a little soon to resume your trolling? Well. Must be a real drag to be so miserable. A little bit more positivity and people might actually want to spend time in your company, you know.

 

[wilde]

Are you intentionally obtuse or does it come naturally?

Only when I deal with dipstick like you...

 

[Cock Throppled]

I can't believe some of you go on attack mode when my main suggestion is that treatment be provided for addicts. That has NEVER been a priority for our governments. Anyone remember the Four Pillars approach to dealing with addictions? The only pillar consistently missing is treatment options.

We all know where this is heading - fee drugs to addicts. Actually, that would make more sense for real harm reduction because it might stop all the robberies, strong-armings, theft, prostitution, OD's and violence that revolves around addictions.

The public probably won't accept it, but Insite and free crack pipes is grooming us for it.

PS - Miss Bijou - Yours is the only font that is so tiny. Is it to compress your overly-long posts or have you reduced it to miniscule for some other reason?

 

[wilde]

I can't believe some of you go on attack mode when my main suggestion is that treatment be provided for addicts.

That's because you went into attack mode when other people suggest that handing out free crack pipes is a viable option as a form of harm reduction. Treatment is of course the ideal solution but you cannot treat addicts unless they are ready for treatment. And before you ask, yes, I have dealt with friends addicted to hard drugs.