Why should taxpayers pay for these drug addicts to get free needles and a place to continue their habit. I say give them all a syringe loaded and euthanize these useless burdens on society. Then send the carcasses to the crematorium and the ashes to the landfill.
Drug injection clinics opening in Toronto
- Thread starter Galseigin
- Start date
Why have free healthcare? because helping the needy is what Canada and a few European countries have done and it has served them well.
You don't disown your kids, if they fail in school or smoke pot or get into trouble, you help them out, same goes for addicts
would you not be happy, if even 10% of addicts stopped shooting up due to these sites? or if the HIV, Hep C, Hep B and other diseases went down overall and also the cost/ burden of these on healthcare?
Yes, if a diabetic has to pay for his syringes then, I can see how that is unfair, but if you can afford them then you should buy them.
Well, first off because it is cheap, and less expensive for taxpayers than the health care resources to treat them when they get Hepatitis or HIV.
But you'd have to be pragmatic and not emotionally sanctimonious to accept that.
Ahhhhh so much for any humanity. So just go along because it's cheaper.
Are you trolling or really this ignorant?
For the assembled masses please explain how you equate free health care (helping an addict quit) with subsidizing their habits (clean rooms and free supplies; not just needles but even things like burners) to poison themselves
Even a single gram of hard drugs causes permanent damage to the body
Do you know the cost of HIV per person per year? its more than $4k a month or $379,000 for a lifetime, if not subsidized.
http://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/monthly-cost-treating-hiv
Injectable drug use is the most high risk activity to contract HIV.
There are cost of Hep B, Hep C and other diseases that are not accounted for in this argument
.These are the benefits
reducing infection and disease caused through sharing injection/lack of hygiene.
Supporting people in breaking addiction habits.
Reducing healthcare cost by having less sick people.
I am sure there are research articles out of Vancouver that can help in educating the masses in the benefits of this program.
Following is an article that might help. '
Its states that scientific peer review journals widely agree to have SIS (Safe Injectable Sites), which has a positive impact on society and healthcare.
Countries such as Australia have also made this their standard practice.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.HL23.1
Canada (cross country) has an avg of 2,500 new HIV infections per year. Despite mass hysteria it is not that serious a diesease when put in perspective with 40+ million people in the country + all the visitors
But again even from your example, TEACHING the stupid people about hygiene (or better yet to quit) is better than encouraging them to shoot up
I never understood this either.
For all those homeless people with seemingly no job or home, how do they get money to buy cigarettes, drugs or booze?
Theft or panhandling I guess. But for drugs, I don't think the dealer is giving it away for free, so how do homeless broke people afford to get drugs?
Not a fan of tax money paying for druggies, but in the grand scope of things probably not a lot of money.
The biggest concern is for people downtown. These drug places will likely be built downtown where most homeless people gravitate towards. You don't see many druggies hanging out in nice suburban areas.
So for you downtowners, you better hope these clinics are built off the beaten path. Or else you're going to get a lot of druggies hanging out near the clinic...... near your condo.
The biggest concern is for people downtown. These drug places will likely be built downtown where most homeless people gravitate towards. You don't see many druggies hanging out in nice suburban areas.
So for you downtowners, you better hope these clinics are built off the beaten path. Or else you're going to get a lot of druggies hanging out near the clinic...... near your condo.
I'm no druggie or alcoholic, but in Alcoholics Anonymous, do they encourage drinkers to keep drinking, or to moderate your drinking? Or is it more of "stop drinking counseling?" Serious question.
Well, to be fair, how is it any different comparing a druggie shooting up in an alley vs shooting up at a government clinic?That is a very implied knee jerk reaction based on your preconception that continued drug addition is a choice that these weak addicts have any chance to overcome before they die from an OD or contracting hep C or HIV etc.
Sure, in a world of unicorns and cotton candy everyone would have a good job, come from a good family, have no mental issues, never had been abused or had trauma or failure in their lie.... but that is not the world outside of your nice suburban life.
People end u at the very bottom of society for may reasons and many end up horribly addicted to seriously dangerous drugs. You telling them to "smarten up" or telling them that drugs are bad only has an effect on YOU thinking you have any sort of influence. Whereas you are impotent in as having any influence.
These drug addicts will continue to inject dangerous drugs using dirty needles in Allan Gardens and behind peoples houses and business' and then discard the used syringes in the grass, shrubs etc. And another druggie will pick it up to use it with predictable results.
These are not recreational, discretionary users. These are people whose lives have seriously degenerated to almost as low as they can go.
What do you want to do with them?
1. Go on pretending that if you do nothing that allowing them to continue to inject in public places does hurt anyone?
2. Round them all up and "get them help"? Sounds so nice and patronizing. Except when you realize the our already way over budget city, and provincial services are already stretched to the limit such that drug addicts who WANT HELP can't even get it. So what do you think the chances of success are after spending $30k on a homeless drug user who is so far gone to be actually a lost cause ?
3. Wave your sanctimonious finger and tut-tut that "they" should do "something" . Meaning the government txt you and guys like you always whine that you want to stop wasting money.
How about simply giving these poor unfortunately addicts some sanitary location to inject the drugs THEY WILL INJECT IN A PARK OR SOMEONE"S BACKYARD ANYWAYS?
You really think that someone who is not a drug user, or is maybe on the fence over becoming one will see he "Safe Injection Clinic" as some sort of cool party place to hag out if they just start trying to use drugs?
LOL!!!
People start drugs for many reasons. More than you and I cn even begin to imagine. But once they start, it is an incredibly difficult , if not impossible addition nd lifestyle to escape.
Death is usually the escape.
For the cost of renting a vacant storefront, a few thousand $0.50 insulin syringes and some basic staff for may $30k a month, it seems like a bargain f we can prevent a few of them from developing hepatitis or HIV which is much more expensive to treat a single person. If you have no sense of humanity, you gotta like the numbers!
Either way, they get high.
I don't see either alternative helping the druggie turn their life around, since the government is supporting getting high, but with the added benefit of a clean environment with nurses to help them get "safely high".
How would that be any different than drunk at home. But this time, the city has drunk houses where someone can pop in and the nurse gives him a free case of beer.
If someone is unemployed, the government pays out a bit of UI, but assumes you do keep looking for a job and do those government training courses to help you get back on your feet. They don't support unemployed people by having offices where the purpose is to let a jobless guy sit around by attending a government funded lounge with TVs to watch sports all day.
In AA they tell people that when you're ready to stop drinking come and see us, they don't counsel they share their experience. They feel that if you're an alcoholic you can't drink safely.
I don't know why this is difficult for some people to understand, when you help the addicts with needles you are helping us, society. Addicts will use until they're ready to stop. There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water but you can't force him to drink.
The "harm reduction" is harm reduction towards society and future expenses, its not that we are happy to let the junkies continue in their path of self destruction. You are saving money.
Same thing methadone, I'm not crazy about it but it is a harm reduction alternative. Instead of shooting up in the streets and crime they take methadone and many back to work. Eventually methadone can be tapered and the addict can become drug free and a useful member of society.
According to the article in 2013 75K people used injectable drugs.
out of those 6% acquired HIV i.e. 4500.
cost of HIV drug through a life time is $370,000 USD, so adding a lifetime liability of 1.6875 billion US$ every year, according to you is a waste? did I understand you correctly?
piling $1.6 bill worth of liability on the Canadian healthcare every year, when it can be prevented does not sound feasible to you?
Here is a research article that was presented to the parliament.
It touches upon, Cost to healthcare, reduction in crime, improving standard of living through social assistance ( counselling), reduction in deaths due to OD amongst others.
Read through it.
Scientist, spent a lot of time and money collecting this info. perhaps this would change your and others opinion on the feasibility of SIS.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-59914.pdf
Most of addicts get their money from begging on the street or stealing stuff. Always buy beggars food/clothes/toiletries and never give them cash.
Following up on the discussion of "how do drug addicts afford their drugs (yet can't afford fresh syringes) anyway?", what is the policy of safe injection sites regarding the drugs being taken? Can the users inject anything they like? Do the clinics ensure that the drugs they plan to inject are: a) pure, b) the actual drugs the user thinks they are, or c) at a safe dosage level? Or, to avoid all of these potential problems inherent in assisting someone taking drugs, do the injection sites simply provide the drugs, in order to be sure that both the drugs and the injections are "safe"?
I'm sure the answers to these questions would affect whether the public would support these sites or not.
I'm sure the answers to these questions would affect whether the public would support these sites or not.
The sites don't provide drugs, the nurses check to see what the person is injecting, I guess to see how much they're injecting and what kind of drug in case they have to administer an antidote.
In England they use to give drug addicts cigarettes injected with heroin for them to smoke, your local pharmacy provided them.
If you are right about drug users providing their own drugs, allowing that strikes me as a very dangerous thing for a public servant to be doing on behalf of the city. By providing safe injection sites and paraphernalia, the city is assisting people to take drugs. If they are not ensuring that the drugs themselves are safe, I have no doubt there will be legal liability on the part of city if there are overdoses, blood poisonings, violent assaults between users and/or staff resulting from overdoses/tainted doses. After all, how could you ever obtain a binding and enforceable release from a drug addict?
Really, you're that blind? You're participating in an activity that's THE fuel for drug addiction.
Clearly they have some type of legal coverage, they've been doing it for 13 years. I don't know details. I'm sure its the same coverage that any common nurse gets when they inject a flu shot or whatever.
I'm not sure what you mean by legal coverage.
Do you mean insurance? Helping someone take a substance banned by federal law, known to have adverse health effects (even if processed and administered to the "best practices" that are known in the drug trade) would be uninsurable.
Do you mean a legal waiver of liability? Again, good luck enforcing a waiver signed by a known drug addict with/without other mental health issues.
This is a world of difference from a licenced professional (nurse) administering a medication, which is lawful to administer, prescribed by another licensed professional (doctor), with the informed consent of a patient who is competent to give medical consent (or their lawful designate), and which all of doctor, nurse and patient anticipate will improve the health of the patient.
So "whatever" doesn't really cover this one.
Call them up, I'm sure they'll tell you.
http://www.vch.ca/locations-and-services/find-health-services/?program_id=2711
